DRAFT

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT DOCUMENT:

 POTENTIAL CONTROL STRATEGIES TO REDUCE

EMISSIONS FROM REFINERY WASTEWATER COLLECTION

AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS

MAY 2004

FINAL DRAFT:

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
The staffs of the California Air Resources Board and the Bay Area Air Quality

Management District have prepared this document. Publication does not signify that the

contents reflect the views and policies of the Air Resources Board or the Governing

Board of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, nor does mention of trade

names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

Principal Authors:

Timothy X. Dunn, Air Resources Board

Damian M. Breen, Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Contributing Authors:

Chan Pham, Air Resources Board

Prepared under Supervision of:

Erik C. White, Manager, Engineering Evaluation Section, Air Resources Board

Dean C. Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch, Air Resources Board
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. SUMMARY...............................................................................................................1

A. Scope of Technical Assessment...........................................................................1

B. Findings ................................................................................................................1

1.Emission Inventory............................................................................................1

2.Potential Control Strategies...............................................................................2

3. Cost and Cost-Effectiveness .............................................................................3

II. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................4

A. Changes to Emission Inventory ............................................................................4

B. Control Measure Development .............................................................................4

C. Areas of Future Further Study ..............................................................................4

III. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................6

A. Background...........................................................................................................6

B. Existing Regulations .............................................................................................6

1. District Regulation 8, Rule 8..............................................................................6

2. District NSR Requirements................................................................................7

IV. REVIEW OF OTHER EXISTING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS ......................9

A. U.S. EPA Requirements for Wastewater Streams ................................................9

B. Wastewater Regulations in Other California Air Districts ....................................10

C. Comparison of the BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 8 to Other Wastewater Rules.11

V. DESCRIPTION OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT SYSTEMS

..............................................................................................................................12

A. Process Background...........................................................................................12

B. Refinery Wastewater Collection Systems ...........................................................12

C. Refinery Wastewater Treatment Systems...........................................................14

VI. SCOPE OF TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT..............................................................16

A. Scope of Technical Assessment.........................................................................16

B. Future Work ........................................................................................................16

VII. METHODS AVAILABLE FOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER

COLLECTION SYSTEMS .....................................................................................18

A. Source Testing....................................................................................................18

B. Material Balance .................................................................................................19

C. Emission Modeling..............................................................................................19

1. WATER9 .........................................................................................................20

2. TOXCHEM+ ....................................................................................................20

D. Factors Influencing VOC Emissions from wastewater Systems..........................21
ii

VIII. SOURCE TESTING AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES ...............................22

A. Overview.............................................................................................................22

B. Site Visits ............................................................................................................22

C. Source Tests.......................................................................................................23

1.Sampling Plans ...............................................................................................23

2.Sampling Protocols .........................................................................................24

3. Field Sampling ................................................................................................24

D. Sample Analysis .................................................................................................25

1. Wastewater samples.......................................................................................25

2.Air samples .....................................................................................................27

E. Quality Assurance and Quality Control ...............................................................27

1.Sample collection ............................................................................................27

2.Sample analysis ..............................................................................................27

IX. EMISSION MODELING..........................................................................................29

A. TOXCHEM+ Emission Modeling.........................................................................29

B. Model Inputs .......................................................................................................29

1. Wastewater Collection System Layout ............................................................29

2. Wastewater Flow Parameters .........................................................................31

3. Wastewater Composition ................................................................................32

C. Emission Contribution from Other Wastewater Collection Components .............34

D. Factors Influencing Emission Calculations..........................................................34

X. EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS...........................35

A. Existing VOC Emission Inventory for Refinery Wastewater Systems .................35

B. Estimated Emissions from Refinery Drains and Junction Box Vents ..................35

C. Comparison of TAD Emission Estimates to Existing District Inventory ...............36

D. Comparison of TAD Emission Estimates to Other Emission Estimates ..............36

XI. POTENTIAL CONTROL STRATEGIES.................................................................38

A. Equipment Control Strategies .............................................................................38

1. Water Seals.....................................................................................................38

2. Inspection and Maintenance Programs ...........................................................40

3.Vent Control Devices.......................................................................................42

4.Performance Based Standards .......................................................................43

5. Hard Piping .....................................................................................................43

B. Pollution Prevention Strategies...........................................................................44

1.Pollution Prevention Programs ........................................................................44

XII. POTENTIAL CONTROL STRATEGY COSTS AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS.....46

A. Control Costs ......................................................................................................46

1. Water Seals on Drains ....................................................................................46

2. Water Seals on Junction Box Vents ................................................................48

3. Other types of Vapor Recovery and Control Equipment..................................49

4.Performance Based Standards .......................................................................50

5. Hard Piping .....................................................................................................50
iii

B. Control Cost-Effectiveness .................................................................................50

1. Overall Cost-Effectiveness ..............................................................................51

2. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness for Water Seals on Drains.............................51

3. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness for Water Seals on Junction Box Vents.........52

XIII. REFERENCES.......................................................................................................53
iv

APPENDICES

A. Bay Area Air Quality Management District:

Regulation 8, Rule 8 (Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from

Wastewater Separators)

B. United States Environmental Protection Agency New Source Performance

Standards For Refinery Process Drains (40CFR60.692-2)

C. South Coast Air Quality Management District:

Rule 1176 (VOC Emissions from Wastewater Systems)

D. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Rule 4625: (Wastewater Separators)

E. Refinery Specific Site Visit Information

F. Refinery Sampling Plans

G. Correspondence between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

California Air Resources Board staff regarding Wastewater Methodologies

H. Refinery Wastewater Laboratory Analysis

I. Predicting VOC Emissions from Wastewater Processes Using General Fate

Models

J. Comparison of General Fate Models WATER9 and TOXCHEM+

K. Calculating VOC Emissions from Wastewater Collection Using WATER9 and

TOXCHEM+

L. Explanation on the Use of Surrogates and Surrogate Selection for Modeling

M. Description of Methodology Used to Determine Cost Estimates
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 1

I. SUMMARY

As part of the San Francisco Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour

National Ozone Standard (2001 Plan), the staffs of the Bay Area Air Quality

Management District (District) and the Air Resources Board (ARB or Board) have

completed an initial assessment of the wastewater systems for the Bay Area refineries.

This assessment was conducted to determine whether there are significant potential

emission reductions from control of uncontrolled components of refinery wastewater

collection systems. The assessment examined the wastewater system for the refineries

to identify the potential for further VOC emission reductions from drains and junction

box vents. This technical assessment document (TAD) presents the findings of this

assessment.

A. Scope of Technical Assessment

Refinery wastewater collection and treatment (wastewater) systems are large systems

that encompass an entire facility, which can span hundreds of acres. They serve every

unit in operation at a refinery, and because of the unique layout of each refinery, each

wastewater system is different. Because of the significant resources necessary to

evaluate every portion of each refinery wastewater system, and the limited resources

available, the scope of this report is limited to only a portion of the refinery wastewater

system. This TAD includes data from estimation and direct measurement of refinery

VOC emissions from collection components, specifically drains, junction box vents and

manholes used in the refinery wastewater system. Emission estimates from treatment

components, e.g. biological reactors and clarifiers, were not performed. However, study

of treatment systems is recommended for further study.

B. Findings

Based on this assessment, several potential control strategies have been identified for

further evaluation for potential rulemaking.

1. Emission Inventory

Prior emission inventory estimates suggested that District-wide refinery wastewater

collection and treatment systems emitted about 4 tons per day (tpd) of VOCs. This

inventory includes VOC emissions associated with the oil/water, or API separator,

fugitive emissions from drains, vents and manholes, and in some cases, VOC

emissions from the wastewater treatment system. These wastewater treatment

systems include aerators, biological oxidation systems, marshes and settling ponds.

This VOC emission estimate includes 2.6 tpd from the collection systems – drains,

manholes, junction box vents, and sewer reaches and 1.4 tpd from wastewater

treatment systems. These are the 2001 estimated emissions as reported from District.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 2

This TAD does not provide a complete quantification of wastewater VOC emissions

from the collection and treatment system. Therefore, it is not possible to directly

compare the prior District emission inventory figures to those estimates provided as part

of this TAD. However, based on the analytical work performed as part of this TAD, it is

estimated that wastewater collection drains, junction box vents, and manholes

contribute at least 3.3 tpd to District VOC emissions. It should be noted that, significant

amounts of diesel range materials were found in the wastewater samples and the

emission significance of these materials has not been established as part of this TAD. It

is recommended that determination of the emission impact from diesel range

components in the wastewater be included in future studies.

2. Potential Control Strategies

Based on this assessment, two types of potential control strategies to control emissions

from wastewater collection systems have been identified. These can be grouped into

two types:

• Equipment Control

• Pollution Prevention

Equipment control strategies are those that require the installation of new equipment or

devices, or can include physical changes to the wastewater system. Potential

equipment control strategies applicable for refinery wastewater systems include:

• installing water seals on vents and drains open to the atmosphere can

provide 1.8 tpd of VOC emission reductions

• sealing manholes open to the atmosphere can provide 0.32 tpd of VOC

emission reductions

• collecting and venting the emissions to a control device,

• setting performance based standards (such as an emission limit), and

• enclosing open weirs and lines with direct piping (also called hard piping).

Refineries in the District currently employ some of these control strategies. For

instance, of the nearly 11,800 wastewater drains at refineries in the District, about

3,200, or 27 percent, are controlled with water seals. Also, several refineries use other

types of control devices, such as: carbon adsorption, venturi-type scrubbers, collection

and venting of wastewater gases to the refinery flare system. These devices are

typically used to control benzene emissions from District refinery wastewater streams

like wastewater from crude desalting units.

Pollution Prevention strategies are designed to reduce the source of the VOC emissions

through changes in the operation of the refinery, as opposed to controlling the

emissions with equipment.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 3

Additional measures, such as the use of inspection and maintenance programs, can

further serve to reduce emissions from wastewater collection systems. Such types of

inspection and maintenance programs are common at refineries within the District for

other source categories (i.e., fugitive emissions from valves and flanges). However,

they are not currently used with wastewater systems.

3. Cost and Cost-Effectiveness

Equipment control strategy costs can vary greatly. Installing water seals on drains can

cost between $400 and $1000 per drain, with each refinery potentially needing 500 to

4,800 of these devices. Control costs for manholes are in the same range as drains,

$400 to $1000 per manhole. There are over 5800 refinery manholes in the district.

However, many manholes are sealed or in areas with no VOC emission potential.

Control costs for water seals on junction box vents are more expensive, between

$2,000 and $2,500 per unit, but fewer are needed. It is estimated that approximately

2000 refinery wastewater junction box vents need to be controlled District wide. In

addition, it is likely that any control strategy based on minimized venting of wastewater

collection system gases will require an inspection program, with a dedicated refinery

inspector. This inspector would be a refinery employee, costing each refinery about

$65,000 per year.

The estimated annual costs to control the uncontrolled refinery wastewater collection

system emissions within the District range from approximately $1.5 million to $3.3

million dollars. These are total capital costs annualized over ten years and include the

costs for a dedicated, regular inspection and maintenance program. These costs

translate into an estimated overall cost-effectiveness of $1,900 to $4,200 per ton of

VOC controlled.

Process control strategy costs are difficult to quantify since this strategy requires

refinery operational changes. Either, in the way wastewater feeds the collection system,

and/or how the wastewater system is operated. These process changes vary from

refinery to refinery due to each refinery's unique operating characteristics. In many

cases, these changes result in cost savings to the refinery operator by reducing raw

material inputs or through reduced waste handling. Changes in process control can

provide cost savings in addition to providing emission reductions. Refinery specific

process control strategies, and their associated cost-effectiveness, were not calculated

as part of this TAD, because of the difficulties in quantification of these costs, and the

significant variability between refineries.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 4

II. RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter summarizes staff’s recommendations based on the findings of this TAD.

A. Changes to Emission Inventory

It is recommended that the emission inventory for wastewater systems at petroleum

refineries be updated pending the completion of all areas of study outlined in this report.

In general, these changes would better characterize the VOC emissions from refinery

wastewater systems, especially the contribution from process drains, wastewater

collection system vents, and manholes. An assessment of the overall wastewater

system emission inventory cannot be performed at this time without additional

information.

B. Control Measure Development

It is recommended that the existing regulation (Regulation 8, Rule 8) pertaining to

wastewater systems at refineries be considered for amendment. Potential amendments

for evaluation should include new requirements for the wastewater collection

components (process drains, vents, manholes, and open sewers) of wastewater

systems. Similar provisions already exist within the South Coast Air Quality

Management District’s Rule 1176, VOC Emissions from Wastewater Systems, and U.S.

EPA New Source Performance Standards.

C. Areas of Future Further Study

As discussed in more detail in Chapter V, it is recommended that other components of

the wastewater system be evaluated. Potential future areas of further study should

include:

• Monitoring and characterization of VOC emissions from the wastewater

collection system caused by heavier hydrocarbons, i.e., diesel fuel, fuel oils,

etc.

• Monitoring and characterization of emissions from oil-water, or API,

separators.

• Investigation of other wastewater treatment components, including

- Equalizer basins

- Clarifiers

- Biological treatment basins

- Sludge handling processes

These areas are potential sources of additional VOC emissions not determined by this

TAD. Also, emissions from these refinery areas may not be accurately reflected or

captured in the current District VOC emission inventory.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 5

The lack of information on current manhole and junction box vents at each facility

required the emission estimates for these components to be based on data previously

submitted by each refinery in 1999. It is recommended that a new inventory of

manholes and junction box vents be compiled at each refinery. This information and the

wastewater data collected as part of TAD can be used to revise refinery emission

inventories for each District refinery.

Although not specifically part of the wastewater system, it was observed that coke

cutting operations at some facilities generated significant quantities of oily wastewater

and steam at elevated temperatures. This wastewater is often recycled for future use in

the coke cutting operation and not sent to the wastewater collection and treatment

system. However, there do not appear to be any VOC controls on these potential

sources of VOC emissions. It is recommended that the use of water for coke cutting

operations be evaluated as a potential source of additional VOC emissions.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 6

III. INTRODUCTION

This chapter provides background information on the requirements to conduct a

technical assessment of refinery wastewater systems, and a description of existing

District rules and regulations applicable to refinery wastewater systems.

A. Background

On November 1, 2001, the ARB approved the 2001 Plan as a revision to the State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The District prepared the 2001 Plan because the Bay Area

failed to attain the federal ozone standard by its 2000 deadline. The 2001 Plan contains

control strategies with seven new stationary source control measures, five new

transportation control measures, and eleven further-study measures. Five of the

stationary source control measures, and 4 of the further-study measures concern

refinery operations. The new measures and on-going programs will provide 271 tons

per day of combined volatile organic compound (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx)

emission reductions between 2000 and 2006.

One of the further-study measures identified in the 2001 Plan is Further Study Measure

9 (FS-9), Refinery Wastewater Systems. As part of FS-9, the District, in cooperation

with the ARB and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), is to

examine the wastewater system for each of the Bay Area refineries to determine

whether there are significant potential emission reductions that could result from control

of any remaining uncontrolled components of the wastewater system, or through other

measures. This study would examine the wastewater system for each refinery to

identify both means and costs for further VOC emission reductions from each

wastewater system.

B. Existing Regulations

Within the District, some components of refinery wastewater systems are already

controlled through compliance with District Regulation 8, Rule 8 (Wastewater

Separators), District New Source Review (NSR) requirements, and U.S. EPA’s National

Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF).

In addition, several other air pollution control districts (APCD) and air quality

management districts (AQMD) in the State have adopted rules and regulations to

control VOC emissions from refinery wastewater systems.

1. District Regulation 8, Rule 8

Regulation 8, Rule 8 is designed to limit the emissions of VOCs from wastewater

(oil/water) separators, forebays, air flotation units which remove floating oil, floating

emulsified oil, or other liquid VOCs. A copy of Regulation 8, Rule 8 is provided in

Appendix A.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 7

The current requirements for wastewater separators are that the separation is done in

gasketed or vapor tight tanks, external floating roof tanks with primary and secondary

seals, or units equipped with a vapor recovery system that achieves 95 percent

destruction efficiency. Typically, any emission leaks or seal gaps must be repaired

within 15 to 30 days, depending on the type of incident. Regulation 8, Rule 8 has semiannual inspection requirements for gaskets and seals on wastewater separators.

Other requirements of the rule pertain to slop oil vessels and air flotation tanks.

Requirements for these types of units include gasketed covers (with less stringent gap

requirements than for oil/water separators) or a vapor recovery system with a

destruction efficiency of at least 70 percent. Regulation 8, Rule 8 does not have time

requirements for repair of any emission leaks or seal gaps detected, but similar to

oil/water separators, has semi-annual inspection requirements for gaskets and seals on

these units.

Regulation 8, Rule 8 also requires that junction boxes be equipped with solid, gasketed

covers or manholes. However, openings in the covers or manholes are permitted.

There are no inspection requirements for manholes under Regulation 8, Rule 8.

Currently, Regulation 8, Rule 8 does not have provisions to control VOC emissions from

some components in refinery wastewater collection systems, including drains, vents,

and manholes which are a significant source of VOC emissions from the refinery

wastewater system.

2. District NSR Requirements

Within the District, when an emissions source is installed or an existing source is

modified, the District’s NSR requirements must be met. NSR requires the use of the

most stringent emission control device or technique, which is known as Best Available

Control Technology (BACT). BACT is required for new or modified sources which have

the potential to emit 10 pounds per day or more of VOC, carbon monoxide, oxides of

nitrogen, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

In the District, for refinery wastewater systems, BACT has only been identified for

wastewater (oil/water) separators. The District BACT requirements for oil/water

separators is provided below in Table III-1.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 8

Table III-1:

District BACT Requirements for Wastewater

(Oil/Water) Separators1

Flowrate (gallons per minute)

 Greater than or Equal

to 250 Less than 250

Vapor-tight fixed cover and

vented to vapor recovery

system w/ combined

collection and

destruction/recovery

efficiency of 95%

Vapor-tight fixed cover totally

enclosing the separator tank

liquid contents

1 Achieved in practice. More technologically feasible and cost-effective

requirements may be available.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 9

IV. REVIEW OF OTHER EXISTING REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

This chapter discusses other regulatory requirements, both within California and at the

federal level, which apply to refinery wastewater systems.

A. U.S. EPA Requirements for Wastewater Streams

The U.S. EPA has promulgated standards for both the emissions of VOCs and toxic

compounds from refinery wastewater systems.

New Source Review (NSR) and New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) were

components of the 1990 federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA). Under the CAAA,

the District is responsible for implementing NSR (the District’s NSR program was

described in the previous section). However, while the U.S. EPA does not implement

NSR in the District, it does, at a minimum, require new facilities, expansions of existing

facilities, or process modifications to meet lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)

standards (these standards are often not as stringent as District BACT). The U.S. EPA

has set minimum standards for LAER for petroleum refinery NSR in its NSPS, Title 40

CFR Part 60, including Subpart QQQ (Standards of Performance for VOC Emissions

from Petroleum Wastewater Systems).

Under Title 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart QQQ, performance standards have been

established for individual drain systems, including:

• Each drain shall be equipped with a water seal

• Junction boxes shall be equipped with a cover and may have an open vent

• Sewer lines shall not be open to the atmosphere

• Regular inspection and maintenance requirements.

Also under Title 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart QQQ, performance standards have been

established for closed vent systems and control devices, including:

• Any control device shall operate with an efficiency of 95 percent or greater to

reduce VOC emissions vented to them

• All control devices shall be operated with no detectable emissions, as

indicated by an instrument reading of 500 parts per million VOC above

background.

A copy of these requirements is provided in Appendix B.

The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)1 for refineries

were promulgated in August 1995. These regulations are applicable at refineries that

emit 10 tons per year (tpy) of any one hazardous air pollutant (HAP), or 25 tons per year

 

1

 Petroleum Refinery MACT Standard Guidance, EPA/456-B-00-001
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 10

or more of total HAPs. The refineries in the District meet this threshold requirement and

are subject to the refinery NESHAP requirements.

Under Title 40, CFR, Part 61, Subpart FF, the benzene NESHAP regulations require,

among other things, that petroleum refineries use maximum achievable control

technology (MACT) to control emissions of benzene from waste operations, including

certain wastewater systems. Typically, refineries use carbon absorption or collection

and venting of wastewater gases to the refinery flare system (vent flap system) to

control benzene emissions from wastewater systems in compliance with the refinery

NESHAP requirements.

B. Wastewater Regulations in Other California Air Districts

In addition to the District’s Regulation 8, Rule 8, within California, other AQMDs have

adopted regulations to control emissions from refinery wastewater systems.

Rule 1176 (VOC Emissions from Wastewater Systems) in the South Coast AQMD is

designed to limit VOC emissions from the wastewater system. In general, Rule 1176 is

more stringent than Regulation 8, Rule 8. This is because not only does Rule 1176

specify requirements for wastewater separators, but also the entire wastewater

collection system. A copy of Rule 1176 is provided in Appendix C.

For wastewater separators, Rule 1176 requires either a floating roof tank or a fixed roof

tank vented to an air pollution control device that can achieve 95 percent VOC

destruction efficiency. Rule 1176 has monthly inspection and maintenance

requirements for wastewater separators.

For drain system components at refineries (which include process drains, manhole

covers, and junction box or other system vents), the system must be a closed system.

This requires the use of water seals on all process drains, and the enclosure of all

sewer lines and junction boxes with solid, gasketed fixed covers or manhole covers. In

addition, these components are subject to performance standard of no detectable leaks

in excess of 500-parts-per-million (ppm) VOC. Depending on the type of drain system

component, there are inspection and maintenance requirements that can be monthly,

quarterly, semi-annual or annual.

Rule 4625 (Wastewater Separators) in the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD is similar

to the District’s Regulation 8, Rule 8 in its applicability. This rule applies to wastewater

separator units, air flotation units, and forebays. The rule is designed to limit VOC

emissions from wastewater separators by requiring a solid cover, a floating pontoon or

double-deck cover, or a vapor loss control device that has at least 90 percent control

efficiency. There are no specific provisions for junction boxes, nor provisions for an

inspection and maintenance program. A copy of Rule 4625 is provided in Appendix D.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 11

C. Comparison of the BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 8 to Other Wastewater

Rules

In general, Regulation 8, Rule 8 is less stringent than both the SCAQMD Rule 1176

process drain standards and the U.S. EPA’s NSPS standards for drain systems. In

addition, the District has also not established BACT standards for process drains at

industrial facilities, including refineries.

As discussed above, Regulation 8, Rule 8 does not have provisions to control refinery

process drains. The SCAQMD requires all refinery process drains to have, at a

minimum, water seals (which are estimated by the SCAQMD to achieve a 65 percent

emission control efficiency) and comply with a prescriptive inspection and maintenance

program. This requirement is similar to the U.S. EPA’s NSPS standard as well for new

drains. The SCAQMD also requires the process drains and junction box vents to meet

a 500-ppm VOC performance standard. However, for junction boxes, Regulation 8,

Rule 8 is similar to both Rule 1176 and the NSPS standards in that they must be closed

and gasketed, with allowances for vents.

The provisions for wastewater treatment systems, including API and oil/water

separators in Regulation 8, Rule 8 and Rule 1176 in the SCAQMD are similar in their

stringency, and both are more stringent than the wastewater system rule currently

effective in the San Joaquin Valley APCD. Provisions for control of emissions from

wastewater treatment systems by the U.S. EPA were not evaluated. It is important to

note that refinery wastewater treatment systems were not evaluated as part of this TAD.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 12

V. DESCRIPTION OF WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND

TREATMENT SYSTEMS

This chapter describes the types of components that are contained in refinery

wastewater systems in the Bay Area2. These components are segregated into two

types: wastewater collection systems and wastewater treatment systems.

A. Process Background

Refineries are industrial facilities that process crude oil or unfinished petroleum

derivatives into motor gasoline, naphtha, kerosene, jet fuels, distillate fuel oils, residual

fuel oils, lubricants, or other petroleum products. During this refining process, a

significant quantity of industrial wastewater is produced. This wastewater typically

passes through a complex series of on-site collection and treatment units. Many of

these collection and treatment units are open to the atmosphere and allow for

volatilization of VOCs from the wastewater. Final discharge for Bay Area refineries is to

a receiving water body, e.g. San Pablo or Suisun Bays. A block flow diagram of a

typical refinery wastewater system is shown below in Figure V-1.

B. Refinery Wastewater Collection Systems

This section describes typical components of refinery wastewater collection systems.

Because of the unique layout of the wastewater collection system at each refinery, all of

the components described below may not be present at each refinery.

Process drains normally are the point in the wastewater collection system where

streams from the various sources throughout a given process area are normally

introduced. Drains may be designed as a trapped or untrapped device, i.e. with or

without a water seal. Individual drains are usually connected directly to the main

process sewer line. However, they may also drain to trenches, sumps, or ditches.

Manholes are service entrances into sewer lines that permit inspection and cleaning of

the sewer line. They are normally placed at periodic lengths along the sewer line. They

may also be located where sewers intersect (such as junction boxes) or where there is

a significant change in direction, grade, or sewer line diameter. The opening is normally

covered with a heavy cast-iron plate with two to four holes for ventilation and for cover

removal.

Reaches are segments of sewer pipe that convey wastewater between two manholes or

other sewer components such as lift stations or junction boxes.

 

2

 The information contained in this chapter is excerpted from the report Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air

Emissions from Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Final Report, Prepared by the Eastern Research Group for the

Point Sources Committee of the STAPPA/ALAPCO Emission Inventory Program, March 1997.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 13

Junction boxes normally serve several process sewer lines. Process lines meet at the

junction box to combine the multiple wastewater streams into one stream that flows

downstream from the junction box. Liquid level in the junction box depends on the flow

rate of the wastewater. They may also be water-sealed or covered and vented.

Weirs act as dams in open channels in order to maintain constant water level upstream.

The weir face is normally aligned perpendicular to the bed and walls of the channel.

Weirs provide some control of the level and flow rate through the channel.

Trenches are used to transport wastewater from the point of process equipment

discharge to subsequent wastewater collection units such as junction boxes and lift

stations. This mode of transport replaces the drain scenario as a method for introducing

process wastewater into the downstream collection system. Trenches are often

interconnected throughout the process area to accommodate pad water runoff, water

from equipment washes and spill cleanups, as well as process wastewater discharges.

Sumps are typically used for collection and equalization of wastewater flow from

trenches prior to treatment. They are usually quiescent and open to the atmosphere.

Figure V-1:

Typical Refinery Wastewater Collection and Treatment System

 PROCESS A PROCESS C

Drain

 Manhole Junction Lift Equalization

 Box Station Basin

 Clarifier Aeration Clarifier Discharge

 Underflow

PROCESS B Open Sump

 Trench Sludge

 Digester

Waste Sludge

Source: Preferred & Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Wastewater Collection & Treatment. Figure 5.2-1
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 14

Lift stations are usually the last collection unit prior to the treatment system, accepting

wastewater from one or several sewer lines. The main function of the lift station is to

provide sufficient pressure to transport the collected wastewater to the treatment

system.

C. Refinery Wastewater Treatment Systems

This section describes typical components of refinery wastewater treatment systems.

Because of the unique layout of the wastewater treatment system at each refinery, all of

the components described below may not be present at each refinery.

Oil/Water separators, a.k.a. API separators, are the first step in the wastewater

treatment plant. The purpose of these units is to separate liquid phases of different

specific gravity; they also serve to remove free oil and suspended solids contained in

the wastewater. Most of the separation occurs as the wastewater stream passes

through a quiescent zone in the unit. Oils and scum with specific gravity less than water

float to the top of the aqueous phase. Heavier solids sink to the bottom. Most of the

organics contained in the wastewater tend to partition to the oil phase. For this reason,

most of these organic compounds are removed with the skimmed oil leaving the

separator and are typically sent to slop tanks for recovery.

Equalization basins are used to reduce fluctuations in the wastewater flow rate and

organic content to the downstream treatment processes and may be covered, stirred,

and/or aerated. Equalization of wastewater flow rate results in more uniform effluent

quality from downstream settling units such as clarifiers. Biological treatment

performance can also benefit significantly from the damping of concentration and flow

fluctuations.

Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF)/Dissolved Nitrogen Flotation (DNF) tanks that use flotation

to remove oils, grease, scum and solids remaining in the wastewater after the API

separator. DAF/DNF tanks are equipped with surface skimmers to clear the water of

floating oil deposits and scum prior to biological oxidation.

Clarifiers tanks located downstream of biological treatment that separate biomass and,

in some cases, powdered activated carbon, from the wastewater. Clarifiers normally

use gravity settling for separation, but flotation is used at one Bay Area refinery.

Biological treatment basins are large aeration basins where microorganisms metabolize

organic compounds aerobically resulting in energy and biomass production. The

aerobic environment in the basin is normally achieved by the use of diffused or

mechanical aeration. This aeration also serves to maintain the biomass in a well-mixed

regime.

Sludge digesters are used to treat organic sludges produced from various treatment

operations. In aerobic digestion, the sludge is aerated for an extended period of time in
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 15

an open, unheated tank using conventional air diffusers or surface aeration equipment.

The process may be operated in a continuous or batch mode.

Treatment tanks include biological treatment tanks and pH adjustment tanks that may

be used for treatment of wastewater after and before biological treatment, respectively.

Tanks designed for pH adjustment typically precede the biological treatment step. In

these tanks, the wastewater pH is adjusted, using acidic or alkaline additives, to prevent

shocking of the biological system downstream.

Surface impoundments are typically used for evaporation, polishing, equalization,

storage prior to further treatment or disposal, leachate collection, and as emergency

surge basins. They may be either quiescent or mechanically agitated.

Air and steam stripping may be used to remove organic constituents in wastewater

streams prior to secondary and tertiary treatment devices. Air stripping involves the

contact of wastewater and air to strip out volatile organic constituents. As the volume of

air contacting the contaminated water increases, an increase in the transfer rate of the

organic compounds into the vapor phase is achieved. Steam stripping is the distillation

of wastewater to remove volatile organic constituents; with the basic operating principle

being the direct contact of steam with wastewater. The steam provides the heat of

vaporization for the more volatile organic constituents.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 16

VI. SCOPE OF TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

This chapter describes the scope of the TAD prepared for refinery wastewater systems

in the Bay Area.

A. Scope of Technical Assessment

Refinery wastewater systems are large systems that encompass an entire facility that

can span hundreds of acres. They serve every unit in operation at a refinery, and

because of the unique layout of each refinery, each refinery wastewater system is

different. In addition, unlike those refineries operating in the South Coast AQMD where

effluent from the refinery is further treated at a publicly owned wastewater treatment

facility, in the Bay Area, this effluent is further treated through biological means

(marshes and ponds) and discharged directly into a marine environment. Some

refineries complete treatment in tanks and do not use marshes or ponds.

Because of the significant resources necessary to evaluate every portion of each

refinery wastewater systems and in consideration of available resources, the scope of

this report is limited to a portion of the entire refinery wastewater system. This TAD

involves estimation and direct measurement of refinery VOC emissions for the

wastewater collection components of refinery wastewater systems; predominately

composed of drains, manholes, reaches, and junction box vents.

The assessment included visiting each of the 5 refineries, determining the design of the

individual refinery wastewater collection system, collecting 213 waste water samples

and 19 air samples, and the use of models to estimate emissions to the atmosphere.

These activities are described in greater detail in Chapters VIII and IX.

B. Future Work

For the next phase of the technical assessment of wastewater systems, it is

recommended that the remaining work on the wastewater collection system be

completed. This includes additional characterization of emissions from manholes and

junction box vents with an evaluation of potential control strategies. Also, it is necessary

to better characterize the emission contributions from heavier hydrocarbons in the

wastewater stream, e.g., diesel fuel, fuel oils, etc. These materials are typically

determined as the diesel fraction when performing a total petroleum hydrocarbon

wastewater analysis, i.e. TPHd. These materials may be a major source of VOC

emissions especially in those areas of the wastewater system that is above 1000

Fahrenheit (37.80 Celsius).

Based on information gathered as part of this TAD, a number of areas have been

identified as possible emissions sources for benzene. These include blow-down

systems, temporary storage tanks and vacuum trucks. These systems are in need of
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 17

further study to determine compliance with current U.S. EPA standards and for inclusion

in further emissions inventories.

Also as part of the next phase of the technical assessment, the treatment components

of the wastewater system should be evaluated. This effort to continue the technical

assessment of wastewater systems should occur during the next year, and should

include an assessment of the oil-water, or API separators, as well as other wastewater

treatment components. These units would include equalization basins or tanks,

clarifiers, biological treatment basins, and sludge digesters.

In addition, while not specifically part of the wastewater system, during the refinery site

visits it was observed that coke cutting operations at some facilities generated

significant quantities of wastewater and steam at elevated temperatures. While this

wastewater is often recycled for future use in the coke cutting operation and not sent to

the wastewater collection and treatment system, there do not appear to be any existing

VOC controls on these potential emissions. It is recommended that the use of water for

coke cutting operations be evaluated in the future for the potential for additional

emission reductions from this operation.

It is also recommended that components of the wastewater system that move

wastewater “outside of the sewer system” also be evaluated. In particular, it is

appropriate to evaluate the use of wastewater vacuum trucks and their impact on VOC

emissions. Several refineries utilize these vacuum trucks to, among other activities,

clean up spills and remove wastewater from catch basins. These activities have the

potential to contribute to the overall emission inventory for wastewater at refineries, and

are not captured in the current VOC emission inventory.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 18

VII. METHODS AVAILABLE FOR ESTIMATING EMISSIONS FROM

WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS

Several methodologies exist to determine emissions from refinery wastewater collection

systems. This chapter describes the available methodologies for estimating VOC

emissions from wastewater systems3. District and U.S. EPA regulations require

refineries to quantify emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) for all refinery

areas including wastewater collection and treatment systems. Available methods

include published emission factors, source testing, emissions determined by

engineering mass balance equations, and general fate models (GFMs). This technical

assessment document used two GFMs to calculated VOC emissions for individual

refinery areas of each refinery. BACT/LAER emission factor equations published by

U.S. EPA were used to confirm the overall accuracy of the GFM calculations.

A. AP-42, BACT/LAER, and API Drain Model

The typical method used to estimate VOC emissions is the use of emission factors

and/or emission factor equations. The simplest method to estimate VOC emissions

involves the use of an AP-42 emission factor. U.S. EPA data from industry specific

source tests were used to determine AP-42 source specific emission rates. In the case

of drains and manholes U.S. EPA estimates that these components emit 0.07lb/hr lbs.

VOC per hour4. AP-42 assumes that all wastewater units, i.e., drains, manholes, and

junction boxes emit at a fixed rate and therefore, is less accurate for variable process

like refinery wastewater. The best available technology/lowest achievable emission rate

(BACT/LAER) approach refines the AP-42 emission factor. A standard set of process

parameters such as flow rate, chemical composition, and temperature are assumed5.

BACT/LAER emission factor equations better approximate VOC emissions however

these factors do not adjust for drain water seals. The American Petroleum Institute (API)

drain model does model water sealed drains, however, it doesn't model open drains or

other wastewater collection structures. For these reasons, BACT/LAER emission factor

equations and the API drain model were only used to confirm this assessment's

computer modeling calculations.

B. Source Testing

Source tests, i.e., field stack testing, can be used to determine the emissions of VOCs

from each wastewater collection component. Air samples are collected from the various

emission points in the wastewater collection system (drains, sumps, manholes, etc).

These air samples are analyzed for VOC concentration. Other information such as

 

3

 Information contained in this chapter is excerpted from the report Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions

from Wastewater Collection and Treatment, Final Report, Prepared by the Eastern Research Group for the Point Sources

Committee of the STAPPA/ALAPCO Emission Inventory Program, March 1997.

4

 US EPA document, EPA-450/3-85-001a, February 1985, "VOC Emissions from Petroleum Refinery Wastewater Systems -

Background information for Proposed Standards".

5 U.S. EPA, Industrial Wastewater Volatile Organic Compound Emissions - Background Information for BACT/LAER Determinations.

EPA 450/3-90-004. Research Triangle Park, NC. January 1990.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 19

airflow rates for each sample point combined with the air sample concentrations is used

to determine the emissions for each emission point in the wastewater collection system.

While this methodology is highly accurate in determining individual emission points of

the refinery wastewater collection systems, it is not a practical methodology to use.

Since the wastewater collection system consists of thousands of components at each

refinery, this methodology is too time and resource consuming to be the sole

methodology used to estimate emissions from wastewater collection systems.

However, as discussed later, a limited and focused source-testing program can be used

to provide valuable data necessary to confirm emission estimates derived from GFMs

like WATER9 and TOXCHEM+.

C. Material Balance

The simplest estimation method to determine VOC emissions from wastewater

collection systems is through material balance. These emissions are determined by

production mass balance equations Using a material balance approach to calculate

emissions from wastewater systems is straightforward if all input and output data are

available and if the emissions estimate does not require extreme accuracy. Material

balance calculations rely on wastewater flow rate, influent /effluent chemical

concentrations, and characterization sludge disposal. Compound mass that cannot be

accounted for in the effluent or sludge is assumed to be volatilized. However, the use of

this methodology assumes that both the influent and effluent concentrations at each

point in the wastewater collection system are known. Also this method does not

account for biodegradation, sorption onto solids, or other removal mechanisms.

Furthermore, an accurate mass balance requires collection and analysis of many

samples over a long period, because refinery wastewater concentrations are constantly

changing, so they must be averaged before calculating removals. In most cases, a

material balance calculation will provide an emission estimate that is biased toward

overestimating emissions due to the fact that the other pollutant removal mechanisms

(sorption and biodegradation) are not considered. This approach may be a viable

option for collection systems and non-biologically activated treatment where inlet and

outlet pollutant concentrations are known. Because of these limitations, this VOC

estimation method was not used in this assessment.

D. Emission Modeling

The preferred method for estimating emissions from wastewater systems is the use of

computer-based emissions models. There are numerous emissions estimation models

available to calculate emissions from wastewater systems. These include publicly

available models as well as proprietary models. Differences in the models include

applicability to the types of collection and treatment systems, the level of site-specific

data accepted, the level of default data provided, and whether or not the models

account for the full spectrum of pollutant pathways (volatilization, biodegradation, and

sorption). Models may also contain different default data (e.g., Henry’s Law constants,
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 20

biodegradation rate constants). Many of these models allow for user input of data. The

use of site-specific data is always preferred over the use of default data.

Emission models for wastewater collection systems calculate average emission rate for

each of the wastewater collection system components (drain, junction box, etc.) and

apply these emissions to each component at the refinery to determine the overall

refinery wastewater collection system emissions. Typically, the types of data needed

are the chemical and physical properties of the wastewater stream, as well as collection

and treatment device parameters, including:

• Wastewater temperature,

• Flow rate,

• Sewer channel slope,

• Relative depth of flow,

• Pipe diameter,

• Wastewater component design,

• Ventilation rate, and additionally for vents,

• Physical dimensions of the vent structure.

While emission models provide powerful tools for estimating emissions from wastewater

system components, without all of the necessary data these models have limited

applicability. Also, not all models can handle all collection/treatment devices, and

results are likely to vary between models. Two of the more commonly used models to

estimate emissions from refinery wastewater systems are described below.

1. WATER9

WATER9 is a publicly available computer program model developed by U.S. EPA that

models the fate of organic compounds in various wastewater treatment units, including

collection systems, aerated basins, and other units. WATER9 contains useful features

such as the ability to link treatment units to form a treatment system, the ability to

recycle among units, and the ability to generate and save site-specific compound

properties. WATER9 has a database with compound-specific data for over 950

chemicals. The mathematical equations used to calculate emissions in this model are

based on the approaches described in Air Emissions Models for Waste and Wastewater

(EPA, 1994). The WATER9 model is publicly available in the Clearinghouse for

Inventories and Emission Factors (CHIEF) system. WATER9 was used to calculate

open drain emissions in this assessment.

2. TOXCHEM+

Enviromega Ltd. Company (Campbellville, Ontario) developed TOXCHEM+ (Toxic

Chemical Modeling Program for Water Pollution Control Plants), in cooperation with the

Environment Canada Wastewater Technology Centre. This proprietary database

includes 204 chemicals (including metals) and detailed information on physical

properties. The model also includes Henry’s Law constants, sorption coefficients, and
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 21

biodegradation rate constants. The model simulates volatilization, stripping, sorption,

and biodegradation removal mechanisms from weirs, surface volatilization, surface

aeration, and subsurface aeration. A wide variety of wastewater unit operations can be

represented including grit chambers, primary clarifiers, collection reaches, sludge

digestion, aeration basins, and secondary clarifiers. Both steady state and dynamic

results can be obtained. TOXCHEM+ is available through the Enviromega Ltd.

Company. TOXCHEM+ was used to calculate closed drain, manhole, and junction box

vent emissions in this assessment.

E. Factors Influencing VOC Emissions from wastewater Systems

During wastewater treatment, volatilization/stripping, sorption, and biodegradation

primarily determine the fate of VOCs. Of these, volatilization and stripping result in air

emissions. Biodegradation and sorption onto sludge serve to suppress air emissions.

Stripping is the pollutant loss from the wastewater due to water movement caused by

mechanical agitation, head loss, or air bubbles, while volatilization may be defined as

quiescent or wind-driven loss. The magnitude of emissions from volatilization/stripping

depends on factors such as the physical properties of the pollutants (vapor pressure,

Henry’s Law constants, solubility in water, etc.), the temperature of the wastewater, and

the design of the individual collection and treatment units (including surface area and

depth of the wastewater in the system). Wastewater unit design is important in

determining the surface area of the air-water interface and the degree of mixing

occurring in the wastewater.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 22

VIII. SOURCE TESTING AND SAMPLE ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES

This chapter describes the data gathering and analytical methods used to collect data to

allow the determination of the VOC emissions from the five San Francisco Bay Area

refineries.

A. Overview

As mentioned previously, each refinery’s wastewater system is unique. As such, it is

necessary to estimate emissions from each refinery individually (instead of estimating

VOC emissions over the entire source category simultaneously) and sum the individual

inventories to determine the emissions for the whole source category. To do this, the

following activities were conducted:

• Refinery site visits

• Source tests

• Emission modeling

The results of these activities were used to estimate the emissions from each refinery

wastewater collection system in the District.

B. Site Visits

In initiating staff’s efforts to estimate VOC emissions from refinery wastewater collection

systems, it was first necessary to gather information on the layout and operation of each

refinery’s wastewater system. To accomplish this, site visits to each refinery were

performed. These site visits included collecting information about the configuration of

each refinery wastewater system, including:

• Wastewater temperature

• Flow rate

• Sewer channel slope

• Relative depth of flow

• Pipe diameter

• Wastewater component design (plot plans)

- Including location and number of drains

- Identification of controlled versus uncontrolled components

• Ventilation rate

A description of on-site processes that contribute to storm and wastewater flows (e.g.,

pathways of process waters and the system components through which it flows) was

obtained. Also, where available, descriptions of any on-site monitoring performed by

the refineries on storm and wastewater flows and the results of that monitoring was also

collected. Additional information on each of these site visits is provided in Appendix E.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 23

The number of drains and junction boxes at each refinery was verified as one of the first

tasks during the site visits. Table VIII-1 shows the number of controlled and

uncontrolled drains, manholes, and junction boxes, reported by refineries in 1995. It is

believed most if not all junction box vents are uncontrolled.

Table VIII-1:

Number of Drains, Manholes and Junction Boxes in

District Refineries

Refinery Oil/Water

Separators

Uncontrolled

Drains

Controlled

Drains

Manholes Junction

Boxes

1 3 1,677 837 1,965 655

2 4 1,100 1,300 570 190

3 1 572150011,941 647

4 1 50015001402 134

5 1 4,750 50 900 300

Totals 10 8,599 3,187 5,778 1,926

1

Estimated

For those refineries that did not report information in 1995, estimates based on the site

inspection observations were utilized.

Site inspections and consultations on refinery wastewater design and layout began on

March 26, 2002 and continued through September 2002.

C. Source Tests

Upon review of the specific layouts of each of the five refineries, source tests were

performed at each refinery to gather information necessary to perform emission

estimates using available emission modeling software.

1. Sampling Plans

Prior to conducting any source testing at a refinery, a sampling plan was developed.

Because of the uniqueness of each facility, each sampling plan was specific to a

particular refinery. Each sampling plan was developed in coordination with the staff’s of

the ARB, the District, and representatives of that refinery, and was based on information

gathered through the site visits. The sampling plans identified:

• Number of samples to be collected

• Location of each sampling point

• Sampling protocols to be used

• Necessary resource needs (both ARB/District and refinery personnel)

Copies of each of the sampling plans developed for this TAD are contained in Appendix

F.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 24

2. Sampling Protocols

In conducting the field study, both air samples and water samples were collected from

each refinery.

Water samples were collected according to either the American Society for Testing and

Materials (ASTM) method D5495-94 (2001), Standard Practice for Sampling With a

Composite Liquid Waste Sampler (also known as a coliwasa sample), or by using

ASTM method D6759-02, Standard Practice for Sampling Liquids Using Grab and

Discrete Depth Samplers. Coliwasa sampling was the preferred method used to

retrieve a sample for Volatile Organic Analysis (VOA). However, if the depth of the

wastewater was less than 1 foot, coliwasa sampling was not feasible and a grab

sampler was used to collect VOA samples. All wastewater samples were analyzed

within seven calendar days.

VOA samples collected for total gasoline range petroleum hydrocarbon analysis (as

described later in this chapter) were transferred into 40-ml VOA vials containing a

hydrochloric acid preservative. These vials used tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) lined septa

caps, were stored in wet ice (4 degrees Fahrenheit), and transported to the laboratory

for analysis at the end of each day.

Samples designated for total diesel range petroleum hydrocarbon analysis (as

described later in this chapter) were retrieved using a grab sampler and transferred to a

1-liter amber glass sample bottle without hydrochloric acid preservative. The bottles

used a TFE lined cap, were stored in wet ice (4 degrees Fahrenheit) and transported to

the laboratory for analysis at the end of each day.

Air samples were collected according to ASTM method D5466-93 Determination of

Volatile Organic Chemicals in Atmospheres (Canister Sampling Methodology).

Samples of the air were taken using a TFE sampling tube positioned one foot above the

liquid layer. These air samples were taken over a one-minute period. Samples were

taken from wastewater areas, e.g., sumps, freeboard areas of treatment tanks, and

sewer openings. Samples were collected into a 6-liter stainless steel canister that was

evacuated prior to sampling. Samples were collected by allowing the canister to return

to ambient pressure using air collected from the sampling tube. After collection,

samples were taken to the District laboratory for analysis at the end of each day's

sampling. Samples were analyzed within seven calendar days.

3. Field Sampling

The field sampling was conducted in two parts. The first part consisted of a pilot

sampling program to determine the efficacy of the sampling protocol and to provide

ARB, District and refinery staff the opportunity to gain experience and familiarity with the

sampling procedures. The pilot sampling was conducted at one refinery on July 2 and

3, 2002. The Pilot sampling included the collection of ambient air samples and

wastewater samples, and confirmed that the wastewater sampling protocols met both
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 25

field and laboratory quality assurance and quality control standards. The pilot sampling

also identified the need for additional sample collection to identify gasoline and diesel

range hydrocarbons (the initial sampling plans called for identification of gasoline range

hydrocarbons only).

Upon completion of the pilot sampling program, sampling plans (with the revisions

identified from the pilot sampling program) were developed. Refinery wastewater

sampling began on July 22, 2002 and continued through August 20, 2002, and included

sampling at all five Bay Area refineries. Table VIII-2 summarizes the number of

samples obtained from each refinery. A description of each type of sample collected is

provided in the next section below.

Table VIII-2:

Number of Samples Obtained from Each Refinery

Number of Samples Collected

(By Type)

Refinery

Total Gasoline

Petroleum

Hydrocarbon1

Total Diesel

Petroleum

Hydrocarbon2

Air Samples

1 22 21 5

2 33 32 4

3 23 21 3

4 10 8 0

5 23 23 7

Totals 111 105 19

1

These were 40 ml water samples collected to quantify the gasoline range hydrocarbons in

the wastewater.

2

These were 1-liter water samples collected to quantify the diesel range hydrocarbons in

the wastewater.

D. Sample Analysis

1. Wastewater samples

A variety of U.S. EPA analytical methods can be used to determine of petroleum VOC

concentrations in wastewater, e.g., 25D, 304/305, 624/625, 8015, 8021, 8260 and 8270.

Methods 25D, 304/305, 624/625 are emission testing methods designed to determine

compliance with U.S. EPA regulatory thresholds. These methods are used to determine

if a liquid stream is subject to provisions of the federal HON rule (Hazardous Organic

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants6). Also, these methods are

primarily used in predicting the efficiency of wastewater biological treatment systems.

Prior versions of WATER9, i.e., WATER7, used analytical data from Methods 25D,

304/305, 624/625. However, newer versions of these emission models require more

accurate identification of individual VOC compounds.

 

6

 See 29876 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations for clarification of regulatory

text of the ‘‘National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Petroleum Refineries,’’ issued as a final rule on

August 18, 1995.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 26

Recent developments in petroleum wastewater analysis have show that methods 8015,

8021, 8260 and 8270 are preferred for identification of petroleum VOCs. The U.S. EPA

and State agencies have published a number of documents designed to assist in the

selection of analytical methods for petroleum contaminated wastewater7,8. Methods

8260 and 8270 use mass spectroscopy for compound identification. However, Methods

8015 and 8021 are preferred for accurate determination of total petroleum hydrocarbon

(TPH).

Therefore, this technical assessment used the most current versions of Methods 8015

and 8021 suitable petroleum wastewater. The analytical methods for total petroleum

hydrocarbons as gasoline (TPHg) and total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPHd)

were performed as:

1. TPHg analysis was carried out as a simultaneous 8015/8021 method using direct

injection of sample using:

• SW-8469 Method 8015C as modified by California Department of Toxic

Substances (8015Cm), and

• SW-846 Method 8021B.

Note: This combination method essentially splits the output from a gas

chromatograph to a flame ionization (8015) and photoionization detector (8021).

2. TPHd analysis was carried out as a Method 8015C. This involves extraction of

wastewater sample and analysis of extract via gas chromatograph with flame ionization

detector.

Since the WATER9 model can use alternative methods, ARB staff requested approval

from U.S. EPA for the use of Methods 8015 and 8021 for the emission-modeling portion

of this TAD. Subsequent to this request, U.S. EPA approved the use of 8015 and 8021

for use in the emission modeling of refinery wastewater collection systems. Copies of

the correspondence between the staff of the U.S. EPA and ARB regarding wastewater

methodologies are contained in Appendix G.

U.S. EPA Method 8021, commonly referred to as a BTEX (benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene and xylene) analysis, is performed using a gas chromatograph with flame

ionization detector (GC/FID). Method 8021 also includes an analysis of the total

gasoline petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHg) components, roughly hydrocarbons in the

carbon number range of 6 (hexane) through 12 (dodecane).

 

7

 See discussion and references, Chapter 6, "Expedited Site Assessment Tools For Underground Storage Tank Sites: A Guide for

Regulators. (EPA 510-B-97-001). March 1997."

8

Analytical Issues for MTBE and Related Oxygenate Compounds by Deana M. Crumbling and Barry Lesnik,

LUSTLine Bulletin 36,, November 2000, pp.16-18, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.

9

 SW-846 is an acronym for US EPA publication SW-846 Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 27

U.S. EPA Method 8015, commonly referred to as a total diesel petroleum hydrocarbon

(TPHd) test, is also performed using a GC/FID. The analysis includes an analysis of

petroleum range hydrocarbons with carbon numbers from 10 (decane) through 22

(docosane), which roughly corresponds to distillate range hydrocarbons (diesel fuel oil).

2. Air samples

Air samples were analyzed using the District’s Laboratory’s method. This method is

used for the determination of non-methane organic compounds (NMOC) with carbon

numbers from 2 (ethane) through 10 (decane) in ambient air using gas chromatography

with flame ionization detection/photoionization detection (GC/FID).

E. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

Strict quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) procedures were utilized for every

portion of the sample collection and sample analysis activities conducted as part of this

TAD.

1. Sample collection

Sample collection QA/QC activities were focused on ensuring that all samples were

collected in a consistent manner. The same staff members performed all sampling to

ensure that the sampling protocols and methodologies were consistently undertaken. A

precise log noting the sample number, location, facility, time, and sampling method

used was kept. A strict chain of custody procedures was utilized from the field to the

analytical laboratory to ensure sample integrity.

The sampling procedures were subjected to a pilot program to ensure feasibility and

increase reliability and familiarity with the sampling protocols. The sampling procedures

were designed for use in conjunction with analyses for the most common types of

petroleum contaminants (e.g., TPHd and TPHg). While in some cases the sampling

procedures depended upon site conditions and equipment limitations or limitations

imposed by the facility conditions, the exact sampling procedure employed was

documented for each sample.

All equipment was cleaned thoroughly prior to reuse. Blank samples (de-ionized water)

were used to identify cross-contamination between samples due to improper cleaning.

All blank samples collected showed non-detectable hydrocarbon levels. Sample

analysis QA/QC included the use of equipment blanks (samples of deionized water

using coliwasa-sampling apparatus) for analysis by the laboratory for verification of the

analytical results. Laboratory analysis of equipment blanks showed non-detectable or

very low levels of petroleum contamination of the sample collection equipment.

2. Sample analysis
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 28

In addition, duplicate samples were taken at each refinery. Results of the duplicate

sample analysis demonstrated that duplicate results were within experimental error for

U.S. EPA methods 8015 and 8021. All established laboratory QA/QC procedures were

followed for equipment calibration.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 29

IX. EMISSION MODELING

This chapter describes the methodology used in modeling the emissions from refinery

wastewater collection systems.

A. Emission Modeling

As discussed in Chapter VII, the preferred method for estimating emissions from

refinery wastewater collection systems is through the use of computer based emissions

models. This is because each refinery contains thousands of individual wastewater

collection components, and measuring VOC emissions or wastewater petroleum

concentrations from each of these sources was beyond the resources available for this

TAD. Therefore, modeling wastewater collection systems provides a means by which

VOC emissions from the entire wastewater collection system can be estimated with

minimal source data requirements. The modeling was based on field data collected

(such as drain inventories, systems layouts, wastewater flowrates) and observed

wastewater petroleum concentrations, as identified from the laboratory analytical

analysis. The modeling was performed independently on each refinery in the District,

based on data collected specific to that refinery.

There are several models available to calculate emissions from wastewater systems.

TOXCHEM+ and Water9 model were used to estimate the emissions from refinery

wastewater collection systems for this TAD. The significant difference between

TOXCHEM+ and Water9 are:

• TOXCHEM+ assumes all drains use a water seal and manholes are identified as

open reaches with no fluid drop. Also, the TOXCHEM+ mathematical emission

expressions have been calibrated using field emission testing.

• Water9 allows the inclusion of drains, both with and without water seals, and

manholes. However, the Water9 mathematical emission expressions are based on

theoretical parameters that have not been calibrated with field emission testing.

B. Model Inputs

The primary contributing factors used to estimate VOC emissions from refinery

wastewater collection systems were the layout of the wastewater collection system, the

number of drains, manholes and junction boxes used in the system, and the

concentration and composition of gasoline hydrocarbons in the wastewater.

1. Wastewater Collection System Layout

The layout of the wastewater collection system at a refinery is complex. When

evaluating wastewater collection systems, it is often convenient to segregate portions of

the refinery into “process blocks”. By using this approach, a wastewater collection
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 30

system comprising hundreds of acres can be compartmentalized into much smaller

pieces that can be managed much more easily. Using this methodology, the emissions

from the entire system are simply the sum of emissions from each of the process

blocks.

The process blocks are usually comprised of several refining process or storage units

(tanks) that are served by a common wastewater lateral line. The flow to this

wastewater lateral line originates from the drains located at each process unit. The flow

from each of these drains is usually fed through a drain line to a junction box

downstream of the drains. The wastewater flow from these junction boxes is further

consolidated downstream in a trunk sewer that conveys it to the treatment plant. An

example of a refinery process block is provided below in Figure IX-1.

Figure IX-1:

Example Refinery Process Block Diagram

In order to model the wastewater collection system, it is necessary to describe the

layout of the system in a block flow diagram format. A block flow diagram is a simplified

diagram of the wastewater collection system from inflow (drains) to outflow (flow out of

the trunk line). An example block flow diagram for the refinery process block diagram
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 31

shown in Figure IX-1 is shown in Figure IX-2. As can be seen in Figure IX-2, by using a

block flow diagram, it is possible to simplify a number of drains into significantly fewer

drains, thereby simplifying the emission estimation process. While this simplifies the

emission estimation process, it does not affect the final results of the emission estimate.

Figure IX-2:

Example Refinery Wastewater Block Flow Diagram

The refinery wastewater block flow diagrams used for the emission modeling in this

TAD were developed from schematic diagrams of the individual refinery wastewater

systems provided by each refinery, as well as through the site visits conducted at each

refinery. Additional information on the development of the wastewater block flow

diagrams for use in the TOXCHEM+ model is provided in Appendix J.

2. Wastewater Flow Parameters

Once the wastewater collection system block flow diagram has been developed, it is

necessary to input the parameters for each of the components in the diagram into the
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 32

model. These inputs provide the necessary physical parameters in the wastewater

system to model emissions. This includes providing information on:

• pipe diameters of the lines,

• grade (slope) of the lines,

• temperature,

• flowrate, and

• type of control equipment installed, if any.

The wastewater flow property information used to model the wastewater collection

emissions for this TAD was developed from information provided by each refiner,

information collected from the site visits, and information collected as part of the

wastewater sampling activities. Additional information on the wastewater flow property

information used in the TOXCHEM+ model is provided in Appendix K.

3. Wastewater Composition

In modeling refinery wastewater collection systems, the single largest factor affecting

emissions is the type and concentration of petroleum products in the wastewater.

These petroleum products include gasoline, diesel and jet fuel, as well as intermediate

unfinished products, all of which are comprised of many individual compounds. Each of

these compounds has unique physical properties that determine its contribution to the

overall emissions from the wastewater system. The emissions are primarily dependent

upon the volatility of each compound, i.e., the tendency of a liquid to volatilize to a gas.

Some compounds tend to contribute to the overall emissions more than others do.

Therefore to predict overall emissions, chemical properties are used to determine

emission potential. In this technical assessment primary emphasis was focused on

chemical properties.

Calculating the volatile emission contribution from every individual chemical contained

in a wastewater sample is not feasible. Identification of individual compounds is limited

not only because of the shear number of compounds involved, but also due to the

limitations of any analytical method. As discussed previously, U.S. EPA methods 8015

and 8020 do not generally identify each hydrocarbon present in the sample, but report

the relative amounts of hydrocarbons present based on carbon number (i.e., TPHg

[carbon numbers 5 through 12] and TPHd [carbon numbers 10 through 22]).

It is therefore desirable in emission calculations to group hydrocarbon compounds into a

small number of fractions having similar volatility and solubility to simplify modeling.

This provides suitable accuracy, given the simplifying assumptions and uncertainty

inherent in modeling the behavior of hydrocarbons.10,11 These fractions are represented

by a range in equivalent carbon number, EC. By using the chromatograms generated

 

10 Bischoff, K.B., A. Nigam, and M.T. Klein (1991). “Lumping of discrete kinetic systems” in G. Astarita and S. I. Sandler (eds.).

Kinetic and Thermodynamic Lumping of Multicomponent Mixtures. Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam, The

Netherlands, pp. 33-48.

11 Peterson, D. (1994). “Calculating the aquatic toxicity of hydrocarbon mixtures.” Chemosphere, 29(12):2493-2506.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 33

from the analysis, the TPHg and TPHd results can be further refined into smaller carbon

number ranges, as shown below in Table IX-1. Further study needs to be performed to

speciate the TPH diesel compounds identified as part of this study. More detailed

analysis is recommended for these compounds as well as air sampling to determine the

fraction of these compounds that are volatilized and will lead to better emissions

inventory numbers.

Table IX-1:

TPH Surrogate Fractions

Carbon

Number

Range

TPH Surrogate Fraction

Compound

Solubility

(parts per billion)

2 – 6.5 Cyclohexane 55,000

6.5 – 7 n-Hexane 22,152

7 – 8.5 Methyl Cyclohexane 14,000

8.5 – 10 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 57,000

10 – 12 Naphthalene 31,000

12 - 14 2,-Methylnaphthalene 24,600

With the relative amounts of hydrocarbons in each of the above categories known, it is

next necessary to define the properties of each fraction. Each fraction approximates the

physical properties of a majority of compounds in each category. To accomplish this,

available information on the types of hydrocarbons typically present in gasoline and

diesel fuel was used12. Based on this information “TPH surrogate fraction compounds”

were selected. The chemical properties of the TPH surrogate fraction compounds and

their relative concentrations were used as inputs in the model. VOC emission estimates

using this technique are a reasonable method given the assumptions used in modeling

the behavior of hydrocarbons in water and are consistent with other approaches dealing

with complex mixtures13. A more detailed explanation of the use of surrogate fractions

and surrogate selection is provided in Appendix L.

One exception to this methodology was the modeling of certain aromatic hydrocarbon

compounds. While the use of surrogate fractions was necessary to characterize most

hydrocarbons, the amounts of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, as well as

methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE), were specifically identified and reported in U.S. EPA

methods 8015 and 8020. As such, these specific compounds were included in the

model. Also, the concentration of hydrocarbons with carbon numbers greater than C14

were input into the model as “oil and grease”, for which the model is designed to assign

generic chemical properties to this group of compounds.

 

12 Ibid.

13 Bischoff, et al., 199, Bischoff, K.B., A. Nigam, and M.T. Klein (1991). “Lumping of discrete kinetic systems” in G. Astarita and S. I.

Sandler (eds.). Kinetic and Thermodynamic Lumping of Multicomponent Mixtures. Elsevier Science Publishers,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 33-48.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 34

C. Emission Contribution from Other Wastewater Collection Components

As discussed earlier, because of the number of wastewater collection components at

each refinery, it was not possible to source test each component. For most

components, this is not significant since the emission model is designed to estimate

emissions from these components. However, some intermediate components (such as

junction box vents) do not fit well within the model since all of the necessary wastewater

flow parameters and the physical configuration of each junction box are not known.

For these limited instances, the use of emission factors was employed. An emission

factor is a representative value that relates the quantity of a pollutant released to the

atmosphere with an activity associated with the release of that pollutant. These factors

are usually expressed as the weight of pollutant divided by a unit weight, volume,

distance, or duration of the activity emitting the pollutant. For the purposes of this TAD,

emission factors as provided by the U.S. EPA14 were utilized. The emissions from

these components were summed with the results of the emission modeling to provide

the overall emissions for each refinery wastewater collection system. A more detailed

discussion on the use of emission factors to estimate emissions from these components

is provided in Appendix K.

D. Factors Influencing Emission Calculations

VOCs vary significantly in their degree of volatility. Selection of surrogates used in the

drain estimates and model calculations can have a significant impact on the emission

estimates. The surrogates used in model and drain estimate calculations included

inputs for concentrations of high, medium, and low volatility organic compounds as

represented by the chromatogram and carbon number. The high correlation between

relative VOC volatility and carbon number suggests that emission calculations based on

this criteria accurately reflects VOC emissions of a given wastewater composition.

Other factors influencing VOC emission are the design and arrangement of wastewater

systems. All of the calculations used facility-specific data, accurate estimations for

water depth, flow rates, wastewater temperatures, etc. Use of the individual facility data

ensures the VOC estimates are sensitive to individual facility parameters.

 

14 Industrial Wastewater Volatile Organic Compound Emissions-Background Information for BACT/LAER Determinations, EPA450/3-90-004, United States Environmental Protection Agency, January 1990.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 35

X. EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEMS

This chapter discusses the VOC emission inventory for refinery wastewater systems,

and the estimated emissions from drains and junction box vents from the wastewater

collection system, as determined from the emission modeling.

A. Existing VOC Emission Inventory for Refinery Wastewater Systems

Currently, the District estimates that the emissions from wastewater collection and

treatment systems of all five refineries are about 4 tpd of VOCs. This inventory is

shown in below in Table X-1, by refinery.

Table X-1:

2001 VOC Emission Inventory for Refinery

Wastewater Systems1

(By Refinery)

Refinery

Wastewater Treatment

System VOC Inventory

(tpd)

Wastewater Collection

System VOC Inventory

(tpd)

VOC

Emission Inventory

(tpd)

1 0.2 1.1 1.3

2 0.2 1.0 1.2

3 0.1 0.2 0.3

4 0.1 0.1 0.2

5 0.8 0.3 1.0

Total 1.4 2.6 4.0

1 Numbers may not sum due to rounding. Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Also shown in Table X-1 the contribution of refinery drains and other wastewater

collection system components, by refinery. As can be seen in Table X-1, based on the

current emission inventory, drains and other wastewater collection components

comprise approximately 65 percent of all VOC emissions from refinery wastewater

systems.

B. Emissions from Refinery Drains, Manholes, and Junction Box Vents

Based on the analytical work performed as part of this TAD, it is estimated that District

refinery drains, manholes, and junction box vents emit about 3.3 tons per day of VOC

emissions from the gasoline fraction contained in the wastewater. Table X-2 shows

these VOC emissions, by refinery, for wastewater systems at the refineries in the

District.

Significant amounts of diesel range materials were found in the wastewater samples

analyzed as part of this TAD. The emissions significance of these materials has not
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 36

been established as part of this assessment and has been recommended for further

study.

Table X-2:

VOC Emission Estimates for Refinery

Wastewater Drains, Manholes, and Junction Box Vents

(By Refinery)1

Refinery Drain Emissions

(tpd)

Manhole

Emissions

(tpd)

Junction Box Vent

Emissions

(tpd)

Total 2

(tpd)

1 0.412

0.17 0.132

0.70

2 0.27 0.048 0.17 0.49

3 0.14 0.16 0.17 0.47

4 0.12 0.034 0.0842

0.24

5 1.16 0.076 0.17 1.4

Total32.140.49 0.71 3.3

1 Number do not sum due to rounding.

2

Partial emissions. Additional information is needed to complete the assessment of drain and junction box vents from

these facilities.

3 The emissions reported in this table do not represent the total emissions from the wastewater collection system. As

discussed earlier, additional work is needed to estimate emissions from wastewater treatment and TPHd compounds.

4

2.02 tpd emissions from uncontrolled drains.

In evaluating the data in Table X-2, it is important to note that the VOC emission

estimates for Refinery 1 is incomplete. For Refinery 1, only part of the refinery was

sampled during the source tests due to ongoing maintenance to the wastewater system.

This did not allow for the full implementation of the refinery sampling plan at Refinery 1

during the source test period. Also, VOC emissions from the four trunk sewer junction

boxes were only estimated for Refinery 3 due to a lack of information.

C. Comparison of TAD Emission Estimates to Existing District Inventory

The work to quantify the VOC emissions from the wastewater collection system is not

complete; therefore it is not possible to compare the existing District emission inventory

to the emissions estimated as part of this TAD. Future work includes estimating

emissions from wastewater treatment systems and emissions from TPHd compounds.

D. Comparison of TAD Emission Estimates to Other Emission Estimates

While a comparison of the TAD emission estimates to the existing District emission

inventory is not possible at this time, it is useful to compare the emission estimates for

drains and junction box vents to similar estimates by the South Coast AQMD during

their development of amendments to Rule 1176.

In developing the amendments to Rule 1176, staff of the South Coast AQMD performed

VOC emission estimates from uncontrolled drains and junction box vents. In the South

Coast AQMD, it was estimated that there were approximately 12,000 uncontrolled
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 37

drains emitting about 1.5 tpd of VOCs. If this number is adjusted to be consistent with

the approximately 8,900 uncontrolled drains in the District (as shown in Table VIII-1), it

is expected that about 2.0 tpd of VOC emissions would have been estimated in the

South Coast AQMD for an equivalent number of drains. This result shows very good

agreement with the 2.1 tpd developed for drain emissions in this TAD.

A similar analysis is not possible for junction box vents because the number of junction

box vents in the South Coast AQMD is significantly different than in the District, and the

methodology used to estimate emissions in the South Coast AQMD is also significantly

different. Additional work will be needed to further investigate the differences in the

number of junction box vents between the two districts, and the differences in emission

estimation methodologies.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 38

XI. POTENTIAL CONTROL STRATEGIES

VOC emissions from wastewater collection systems can be controlled in a variety of

ways including enclosing or controlling all openings, changing the operation of the units

that are feeding the wastewater collection system, having a rigid inspection and

maintenance (I&M) program or using a combination of controls. The following is a

discussion of various control technologies that can be grouped into either engineering

control strategies and process control strategies.

A. Equipment Control Strategies

Equipment control strategies can require the installation of new equipment or devices,

or can include physical changes to the wastewater system. Potential equipment control

strategies applicable for refinery wastewater systems can include a number of different

components. Figure XI-1 schematically shows the application of these control

strategies in a wastewater system.

Figure XI-1:

Potential Equipment Control Strategies

Carbon Canisters

S or P

Water Trap

Sealed

Sewer

Water Seal

Controlled

Vent

Old Sewer System

Oil/Water Separator

Floating Roof

Gas

H20

Oil

Source: U.S. EPA

1. Water Seals on Drains and Junction Box Vents

Installing water seals on process drains and vents open to the atmosphere would help

prevent emissions from the downstream sewer lines from escaping back out of the drain

or vent opening. Even with water seals installed in drains, emissions have been

reported from VOC-containing liquid left standing in the water seal that was not flushed

into the sewer line. Also, if the water were allowed to evaporate from the water seal
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 39

control, the emissions from the drain or vent would be similar to those from uncontrolled

units. Below are two types of water seal configurations:

• P-leg seal configuration (similar to a kitchen sink drain).

• Liquid seal inserts that can be placed in existing process drains (Figure XI-2)

and junction box vents (Figure XI-3).

Figure XI-2:

Typical Design of a Liquid Seal Insert for Process Drains

The overall control efficiency of this method is estimated at an average of 65%15, and

varies depending on the proper maintenance of the water seal. It is estimated that the

application of water seals to uncontrolled drains and junction box vents in the District

can achieve about 1.8 tpd of VOC reductions.

 

15 Ibid.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 40

Figure XI-3:

Typical Design of a Liquid Seal Insert

For Junction Box Vents

Source: Chevron

2. Sealing Manholes

Installing gasket seals on manholes and plugging holes in manhole covers would help

prevent emissions from the sewer lines from escaping back out of the manhole structure

or cover. Even with gaskets and plugs installed emissions have been reported from

manholes structures. These emissions are usually from cracks and gaps in the manhole

chimney seal or cover ring. In refinery areas with high temperature process water flow

the emissions from unsealed manhole structures these drain or vent would be similar to

those from uncontrolled drains. Figure XI-4 shows a typical detail of refinery manhole.

The overall control efficiency of sealing manholes is estimated at an average of 65%16.

This varies depending on the proper maintenance of the manhole cover seal and overall

 

16 Ibid.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 41

manhole structural integrity. It is estimated that sealing manholes can achieve about

0.32 tpd of VOC reductions.

Figure XI-4:

Typical Design of Refinery Sewer Manhole

3. Inspection and Maintenance Programs

Some control measures, such as water seals, can require an extensive inspection and

maintenance (I&M) program in order to be effective. I&M programs are also useful and

necessary tools to ensure that the emission reductions achieved through the use of

equipment controls are realized. An effective I&M program is designed to inspect (on a

regular basis), maintain and repair (as necessary) the pertinent components of a

pollution control system for proper operation. These inspectors will be refinery

personnel. This could include:

• Inspection of sealed manholes for corrosion and leaks

• Inspection of water seals for evaporated water or accumulation of trapped

VOC containing material

• Inspection and repair of visible leaks from a sealed wastewater system
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 42

• Regular replacement of activated carbon in a carbon adsorption system

• Measurement of VOC concentrations in and around controlled systems (leak

detection program)

4. Vent Control Devices

Collecting and venting the emissions to a control device can achieve a control efficiency

of greater than 95 percent. Potential emission control devices for wastewater collection

systems (predominately junction box vents) include:

• carbon absorption

• thermal oxidation

• catalytic oxidation

• condensation

Table XI-1 below provides information of the operating range and control efficiencies for

each of the emission control devices identified above. An application of an emission

control device (carbon adsorption) in a refinery wastewater system is shown in Figure

XI-5.

Table XI-1:

Operating Ranges for Potential Vapor Recovery

And Control Equipment

Control Technology Applicable

Range (ppm)

Capacity

(cfm)

Removal

Efficiency

Carbon Absorption 20-5000 60,000 90-98%

Thermal Oxidation 100-2000 500,000 95-99%

Catalytic Oxidation 100-2000 100,000 90-95%

Condensation >5000 20,000 50-90%

Source: Shen, Almon M. “Stationary Source VOC and NOx Emissions and Controls”, Presentation at the

1995 Air Pollution Prevention Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, October 1995.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 43

Figure XI-5:

Use of Carbon Adsorption for Control of Wastewater Collection

Systems at a Petroleum Refinery

Source: U.S. EPA

5. Performance Based Standards

Setting performance based standards allows a wastewater system operator to consider

the optimal type(s) of control strategies that meet a particular need based upon system

design and emission levels from each wastewater component. By establishing

performance-based standards, such as setting an emission limit of 500-ppm VOC from

a drain or vent, equivalent emission reduction can be achieved without specifying a

particular control technology.

6. Hard Piping

Enclosing open weirs and lines with direct piping (also called hard piping) is the most

stringent control option and could result in the greatest amounts of VOC emission

reductions. Complete drainage system enclosure can be accomplished in the following

manner:

• Hard-pipe process units to the wastewater separator and then remove or cap

all existing process drains.

• Hard-pipe process units to a drain box enclosure.

• Hard-pipe those process units identified as the largest contributors to process

drain emissions.

• Hard-pipe junction boxes that are completely covered and sealed with no

openings.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 44

This method is considered to have up to 100% control efficiency17. However, the safety

issues and reconstruction complexity may be two prohibiting factors that reduce the

likelihood of converting an existing open drainage system to a totally enclosed system.

B. Pollution Prevention Strategies

In addition to the use of equipment control strategies to reduce VOC emissions from

wastewater collection systems, there are also several control strategies that could be

implemented to reduce emissions from these systems. This approach differs from the

equipment control strategies in that it is designed to reduce the source of the VOC

emissions (pollution prevention) through changes to the operation of the refinery, as

opposed to controlling the emissions themselves with equipment. Additional measures,

such as the use of I&M programs, can further serve to reduce emissions from

wastewater collection systems.

1. Pollution Prevention Programs

For refinery wastewater collection systems, the following pollution prevention control

measures have been identified as potential control measures to reduce VOC

emissions18:

• Reduce the generation of tank bottoms

• Minimize solids leaving the desalter unit

• Minimize and/or segregate cooling tower blowdown condensate from

wastewater collection

• Minimize fluid catalytic cracking unit decant oil sludge

• Control heat exchanger cleaning solids and sludge

• Minimize discharge of surfactants into wastewater collection system

• Thermal treatment of sludge

• Reduce use of open pits, tanks, and ponds

• Remove unnecessary storage tanks from service

• Segregate storm, process, and septic wastewater collection

• Improve recovery of petroleum product from wastewater collection systems

• Identify VOC sources and install upstream water treatment and/or separation

• Use oily sludges as feedstock

• Control and reuse FCCU and coke fines

• Train personnel to reduce solids in sewers to (reduction of VOCs from volume

from sludge treatment

An I&M program, in addition to that discussed for equipment controls, can be designed

to ensure that pollution prevention programs, such as reduced waste generation and

solids control, are being followed. These types of procedures could include monitoring

 

17 “Final Staff Report for Proposed Rule 1176 – VOC Emissions from Wastewater Systems”, South Coast Air Quality Management

District, September 13, 1996.

18 Profile of the Petroleum Refining Industry, US EP{A 310-R-013, 9/1993
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 45

of waste generation, either through continuous samplers or regular testing, monitoring

of use of open pits and ponds, and regular training of refinery inspectors.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 46

XII. POTENTIAL CONTROL STRATEGY COSTS AND COSTEFFECTIVENESS

This chapter discusses the costs and cost-effectiveness associated with the various

potential control strategies discussed in the previous chapter. Because of the difficulties

associated with estimating costs and quantifying the benefits of pollution prevention

strategies, the costs of these types of strategies are not discussed in this chapter.

A. Control Costs

In estimating the costs associated with the potential control strategies identified in the

previous chapter, both the capital costs and the recurring annual costs were considered.

The methodology used to evaluate the capital costs consisted of considering the

annualized capital costs using the capital recovery method. The annualized capital

costs were determined using the following equation:

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor)×(Capital Expenditure)

Where:

Capital Expenditure – Equipment and installation costs

Capital Recovery Factor – 14.2% (7% per year over 10 years)

In evaluating the recurring annual costs, cost considerations were provided for such

expenditures as operating costs (i.e. utilities, adsorption material replacement, etc.) and

potential I&M compliance costs.

1. Water Seals on Drains

Capital costs associated with sealing inserting water seals in drains are not significant in

terms of the cost per emission point. It is estimated that the capital costs are between

$400 and $1000 per drain. However, in considering this cost, it is important to consider

that a refinery wastewater collection system may contain over one thousand

uncontrolled drains.

The total anticipated capital costs to install wastewater water seals on all of the existing

uncontrolled refinery process drains in the District are estimated to be between about

$3.4 million and $8.6 million, as shown in Table XII-1. When annualized over ten years,

these costs are between $540,000 and $1.5 million per year, including annual I&M cost.

Table XII-1 shows these costs by refinery.

Annual recurring costs are comprised mainly of an anticipated need for an I&M program

and equipment depreciation. The I&M program will likely be necessary to ensure the
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 47

operability of each control device (this is already required for drains under the U.S.

EPA’s NSPS, as well as under the SCAQMD Rule 1176). It is estimated that the annual

costs of employing an inspector, who would be a refinery employee, is about $65,000

per year19. It is possible that some refineries will need more than one inspector per

facility. Also, each inspector will require the use of monitoring equipment (such as an

organic vapor analyzer) which costs about $3,000 per unit. It is assumed that

inspectors could be hired part-time or be included in current I&M programs if an annual

I&M program for wastewater systems would require less than one full-time position, so

pro-rated costs are shown in Table XII-1. (Note: Appendix M provides a more detailed

listing of the cost estimate calculations.)

Table XII-1:

Annual Costs for Water Seals on Uncontrolled Drains1

(By Refinery)

Refinery

Number of

Uncontrolled

Drains

Capital

Cost

(Thousand

Dollars)

Annualized

Capital Cost

(Thousand Dollars

per Year)

Annual I&M

Costs

(Thousand Dollars per

Year)

Total Annual

Cost

(Thousand Dollars

per Year over 10

years)

1 1,677 670 – 1,700 100 – 240 10 – 60 100 – 300

2 1,100 440 – 1,100 60– 160 6– 40 70 – 190

3 5722230 – 570 30 – 80 3 – 20 40 – 100

4 5002200 – 500 30 – 70 3 – 20 30 – 90

5 4,750 1,900 – 4,800 270 – 680 30 – 160 300 – 840

Total 8,599 3,400 – 8,600 490 – 1,200 50 – 290 540 – 1,500

1 Numbers may not due to rounding.

2

Estimated from field data.

2. Sealing Manhole Structures

Capital costs associated with sealing manholes and inserting water seals are typically

not significant in terms of the cost per emission point. It is estimated that the capital

costs are between $400 and $1000 per manhole. Installing gaskets or seals and

plugging holes in manhole covers is a straightforward maintenance operation. However,

in considering this cost, it is important to consider that sealing a manhole structure may

require replacement of the complete manhole structure due to cracks and gaps in the

manhole chimney (see Figure XI-4 of refinery manhole). Sealing emission sources from

a failed manhole structure can require significant underground repair and expense.

The total anticipated capital costs to seal manhole structures on all of the existing

refinery manholes in the District are estimated to be between about $2.3 million and

$5.8 million, as shown in Table XII-2. When annualized over ten years, these costs are

between $360,000 and $1 million per year, including annual I&M cost. Table XII-2

shows these costs by refinery.

Annual recurring costs are comprised mainly of an anticipated need for an I&M program

and equipment depreciation. The I&M program will likely be necessary to ensure the

 

19 Ibid. [Note that the cost identified in the SCAQMD report was increased due to inflation.]
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 48

operability of each control device (this is already required for drains under the U.S.

EPA’s NSPS, as well as under the SCAQMD Rule 1176). It is estimated that the annual

costs of employing an inspector, who would be a refinery employee, is about $65,000

per year20. It is possible that some refineries will need more than one inspector per

facility. Also, each inspector will require the use of monitoring equipment (such as an

organic vapor analyzer) which costs about $3,000 per unit. It is assumed that

inspectors could be hired part-time or be included in current I&M programs if an annual

I&M program for wastewater systems would require less than one full-time position, so

pro-rated costs are shown in Tables XII-2.

It is important to note that annual I&M costs are dependent upon the frequency of

inspections necessary. As such, costs for a monthly, quarterly and semi-annual

inspection program were estimated. These range of annual costs (by refinery) for an

I&M program are shown in Table XII-2, along with the total anticipated annual costs

associated with controlling manhole emissions from refinery wastewater systems. (Note:

Appendix M provides a more detailed listing of the cost estimate calculations.)

Table XII-2:

Annual Costs for I&M and Sealing Manholes1

(By Refinery)

Refinery Number of

Manholes

Capital Cost

(Thousand

Dollars)

Annualized

Capital Cost

(Thousand

Dollars per

Year)

Annual I&M

Costs

(Thousand

Dollars per

Year)

Total Annual

Cost

(Thousand

Dollars per

Year)

1 1,965 790 -2000 110 - 280 11 – 70 120 – 350

2 570 230 -570 30 - 80 3 – 20 35 – 100

3 1941 780 -1900 110 - 280 11 – 70 120 – 340

4 400 160 - 400 20 - 60 2 – 14 25 – 70

5 900 360 - 900 50 - 130 5 – 30 56 – 160

Total 5,778 2,300-5,800 330 - 820 30 - 200 360 - 1000

1 Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

2. Water Seals on Junction Boxes

Unlike the case for water seals on drains, the total number of uncontrolled junction box

vents at refineries is unknown. Because of this, a conservative approach was taken to

assume that all junction boxes would need controls. In reality, this is not likely the case

as some junction boxes are already controlled, or are not vented to the atmosphere. As

such, the costs identified below are likely higher than could be expected to comply with

any future rule.

Capital costs associated with water seals for junction box vents are estimated to be

between $2000 and $2500 per vent, based on data provided by refiners. It was

indicated that these costs include installation costs. The total anticipated capital costs

 

20 Ibid. [Note that the cost identified in the SCAQMD report was increased due to inflation.]
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 49

to install wastewater water seals on all of the existing uncontrolled refinery junction box

vents in the District are estimated to be between about $3.9 million and $4.8 million, as

shown in Table XII-3. When annualized over ten years, these costs are between about

$560,000 and $750,000 per year, including annual I&M cost. Table XII-3 also shows

these costs by refinery.

Annual recurring costs are comprised mainly of an anticipated need for an I&M

program. It is estimated that the annual costs of employing an inspector, who would be

a refinery employee, dedicated to monitoring and maintaining the water seals is about

$65,000 per year21, with potentially more than one inspector being required per facility.

Also, each inspector may require the use of monitoring equipment (such as an organic

vapor analyzer) which costs about $3,000 per unit. It is assumed that inspectors could

be hired part-time or be included in current (such as fugitive) I&M programs if an annual

I&M program for wastewater systems would require less than one full-time position, so

pro-rated costs are shown in Table XII-3.

It is important to note that annual I&M costs are dependent upon the frequency of

inspections necessary. As such, costs for a monthly, quarterly and semi-annual

inspection program were estimated. These range of annual costs (by refinery) for an

I&M program are shown in the previous tables, along with the total anticipated annual

costs associated with controlling uncontrolled junction box vent emissions from refinery

wastewater collection systems. (Note: Appendix M provides a more detailed listing of

the cost estimate calculations.)

Table XII-3:

Annual Costs for Water Seals for

Wastewater Junction Box Vents1 (By Refinery)

Refinery

Number of

Junction

Boxes

Capital

Cost

(Thousand

Dollars)

Annualized

Capital Cost

(Thousand Dollars

per Year)

Annual I&M

Costs

(Thousand Dollars per

Year)

Total Annual

Cost

(Thousand Dollars

per Year)

1 655 1,300 – 1,640 190 - 230 4 - 22 190 – 260

2 190 380 – 480 54 – 67 1 – 6 55 – 73

3 647 1,300 – 1,600 180 - 230 4 – 22 190 – 250

4 134 270 - 340 38 - 48 1 – 5 39 – 53

5 300 600 - 750 85 - 110 2 - 10 87 - 120

Total 1,926 3,900 – 4,800 550 - 690 12 - 65 560 - 750

1Numbers may not sum due to rounding.

3. Other types of Vapor Recovery and Control Equipment

While a detailed cost analysis was not performed on all types of emission control

devices potentially available for use with wastewater junction boxes, Table XII-3

provides some generic cost information on other potential vapor recovery and control

equipment. In general, it is expected that the costs associated with the application of

 

21 Ibid. [Note that the cost identified in the SCAQMD report was increased due to inflation.]
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 50

control equipment to junction box vents are significantly higher than with the use of

water seals, although larger emission reductions could be achieved.

Table XII-3:

Operating Costs for Potential Vapor Recovery

And Control Equipment

Control Technology Capital Cost ($) Annual Operating

Cost ($)

Carbon Absorption 15-120/cfm 10-35/cfm

Recuperative 10-200/cfm 15-90/cfm

Thermal Oxidation

Regenerative 30-450/cfm 20-150/cfm

Fixed bed 20-250/cfm 10-75/cfm

Catalytic Oxidation

Fluidized Bed 35-220/cfm 15-90/cfm

Condensation 10-80/cfm 20-120/cfm

Source: Shen, Almon M. “Stationary Source VOC and NOx Emissions and Controls”, Presentation at the

1995 Air Pollution Prevention Conference, Taipei, Taiwan, October 1995.

4. Performance Based Standards

While the costs associated with implementing performance-based standards are difficult

to quantify, in general, the establishment of performance based standards provides one

of the lowest cost options for control. This is because performance based standards

allow each refiner to utilize the control option or options that result in the lowest cost

(both in terms of capital costs and operating costs). As such, it is believed that the

costs associated with performance based standards would be in the range of, or even

less than, the costs identified above for specific prescriptive control strategies.

5. Hard Piping

The costs associated with hard piping are uncertain at this time. This is because

additional work is needed to identify the specific requirements at each refinery if this

control strategy was considered. Costs would be dependent on a number of variables,

including the physical characteristics of the piping necessary (length, diameter, and

material), as well as any necessary construction requirements, such as minimum

required depth and soil/ground conditions in the area.

B. Control Cost-Effectiveness

This section describes the overall cost-effectiveness to control emissions from drains

and junction box vents with water seals, as well as the incremental cost-effectiveness to

control each of these wastewater collection system components separately.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 51

1. Overall Cost-Effectiveness

Based on the estimates of 3.2 tpd of VOC emissions (Table X-2) from uncontrolled

drains, manholes, and junction box vents, it is expected that 2.1 tpd of emission

reductions can be achieved by sealing manholes and installing water seals in drains

and junction box vents. This estimate is based on a 65% control efficiency achieved by

sealing manholes and installing water seals in drains and junction box vents. The

estimated total annual costs for control at each of the refineries in the District is in the

range of $1.4 million to $3.3 million. It is estimated that the cost-effectiveness to reduce

emissions from drains, manholes, and junction box vents ranges from $1900 to $4200

per ton of VOC reduced. This is within the range of cost-effectiveness determined for

other VOC control measures adopted by the District, as well as by the ARB.

In considering this cost-effectiveness, it is important to consider that the emission

estimates for two of the refineries, as discussed in Chapter X, are not complete, and

that characterization of emissions from wastewater treatment and emissions from TPHd

in the wastewater still need to be evaluated. As such, the cost-effectiveness numbers

above are conservative, and the cost-effectiveness of control measures will improve as

additional data is developed.

2. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness for Water Seals on Drains

Based on the estimates of 2.1 tpd of VOC emissions (Table X-2) from refinery drains, it

is expected that 1.3 tpd of emission reductions can be achieved. With estimated total

annual costs for control of all uncontrolled drains at each of the refineries in the District

of $540,000 to $1.5 million (Table XII-1), it is estimated that the cost-effectiveness to

require water seals on uncontrolled drains is between $1,200 and $3200 per ton of VOC

reduced. This is in the range of cost-effectiveness determined for other VOC control

measures adopted by the District, as well as by the ARB.

In considering this cost-effectiveness, it is important to consider that the emission

estimates for two of the refineries, as discussed in Chapter X, are not complete, and

that characterization of emissions from wastewater treatment and emissions from TPHd

in the wastewater still need to be evaluated. As such, the cost-effectiveness numbers

above are conservative, and the cost-effectiveness of control measures will improve as

additional data is developed.

3. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness for Sealing Manholes

Based on the estimates of 0.49 tpd of VOC emissions (Table X-2) from refinery

manholes, it is expected that 0.32 tpd of emission reductions can be achieved. With

estimated total annual costs for control of all unsealed manholes at all of the refineries

in the District of $360,000 to $1 million (Table XII-2), it is estimated that the costeffectiveness to seal manholes is between $3100 and $8800 per ton of VOC reduced.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 52

This is in the range of cost-effectiveness determined for other VOC control measures

adopted by the District, as well as by the ARB.

In considering this cost-effectiveness, it is important to consider that the emission

estimates for two of the refineries, as discussed in Chapter X, are not complete, and

that characterization of emissions from wastewater treatment and emissions from TPHd

in the wastewater still need to be evaluated. As such, the cost-effectiveness numbers

above are conservative, and the cost-effectiveness of control measures will improve as

additional data is developed.

4. Incremental Cost-Effectiveness for Water Seals on Junction Boxes

Based on the estimates of 0.71 tpd of VOC emissions (Table X-2) from junction box

vents, it is expected that 0.46 tpd of emission reductions can be achieved. With

estimated total annual costs for control of all junction box vents at all of the refineries in

the District of $560,000 to $750,000 (Table XII-3), it is estimated that the costeffectiveness to require water seals on junction box vents is between $3300 and $4400

per ton of VOC reduced. This is in the range of cost-effectiveness determined for other

VOC control measures adopted by the District, as well as by the ARB.

In considering this cost-effectiveness, it is important to consider that the emission

estimates for two of the refineries, as discussed in Chapter X, are not complete, and

that characterization of emissions from wastewater treatment and emissions from TPHd

in the wastewater still need to be evaluated. As such, the cost-effectiveness numbers

above are conservative, and the cost-effectiveness of control measures will improve as

additional data is developed.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 53

XIII. REFERENCES

1. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, “Best Available Control Technology

(BACT) Guideline for Water Treating – Oil/Water Separator”, October 1991.

2. Bischoff, K.B., A. Nigam, and M.T. Kline, “Lumping of Discrete Kinetic Systems”,

1991

3. Bischoff, K.B., A. Nigam, and M.T. Kline, “Kinetic and Thermodynamic Lumping

of Multicomponent Mixtures”, 1991

4. Center for Waste Reduction Technologies of the American Institute of Chemical

Engineers, “Practical Solutions for Reducing Volatile Organic Compounds

and Hazardous Air Pollutants,” 2001.

5. Chemical Engineering Progress Publication, “Reduce VOC and HAP Emissions,”

June 2002.

6. Eastern Research Group for the Point Source Committee of the

STAPPA/ALAPCO Emission Inventory Program, “Preferred And Alternative

Methods for Estimating Air Emissions From Wastewater Collection and

Treatment”, March 1997.

7. Garing, Ken, “Benzene Waste NESHAP Issues at Refineries”, United States

Environmental Protection Agency, Powerpoint Presentation, Dallas TX,

December2001.

8. Moretti, Edward C., “Practical Solutions for Reducing Volatile Organic

Compounds and Hazardous Air Pollutants”, Center for Waste Reduction

Technologies of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 2002.

9. NsertAseal Corporation, “Emission Control Products Price List, Background, and

Installation Procedures for Piping and Components”, April 1, 1993.

10. Peterson, D., “Calculating the Aquatic Toxicity of Hydrocarbon Mixtures”,

Chemoshpere, 1994.

11. Shen, Almon M. “Stationary Source VOC and NOx Emissions and Controls”,

Presentation at the 1995 Air Pollution Prevention Conference, Taipei, Taiwan,

October 1995.

12. South Coast Air Quality Management District, “Proposed Amended Rule 1176 –

VOC Emissions From Wastewater Systems”, Final Staff Report, September

13, 1996.
January 7, 2003 TAD-5-27-04.doc 54

13. United States Environmental Protection Agency, AP-42 “Waste Water Collection,

Treatment And Storage”, January 1995.

14. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Benzene NESHAP FAQ

Handbook for Subparts BB and FF”, EPA/305-B-97-009, September 1997.

15. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Petroleum Refinery MACT

Standard Guidance”, August 1995.

16. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Profile of the Petroleum

Refining Industry”, EPA/310-R-95-013, September 1995.

17. United States Environmental Protection Agency, “Control of Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions from Industrial Wastewater, Draft Document”,

EPA/453-D-93-056, September 1992.
Appendix A

Bay Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 8 Rule 8

(Emissions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from Wastewater

Separators)
A-1

BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

REGULATION 8

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

RULE 8

WASTEWATER (OIL-WATER) SEPARATORS

INDEX

8-8-100 GENERAL

8-8-101 Description

8-8-110 Exemption, Less Than 760 Liters

8-8-111 Deleted November 1, 1989

8-8-112 Exemption, Wastewater Critical OC Concentration and/or Temperature

8-8-113 Exemption, Secondary Wastewater Treatment Processes and Stormwater

Sewer Systems

8-8-114 Exemption, Bypassed Oil-Water Separator or Air Flotation Influent

8-8-115 Exemption, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities

8-8-200 DEFINITIONS

8-8-201 Organic Compounds

8-8-202 Wastewater (Oil-Water) Separator

8-8-203 Wastewater Separator Forebay

8-8-204 Vapor-tight

8-8-205 Oil-Water Separator Slop Oil

8-8-206 Oil-Water Separator Effluent Channel/Pond

8-8-207 Full Contact Fixed Cover

8-8-208 Secondary Treatment Processes

8-8-209 Air Flotation Unit

8-8-210 Critical Organic Compound (OC)

8-8-211 Wastewater

8-8-212 Pre-Air Flotation Unit Flocculation Sump, Basin, Chamber, or Tank

8-8-213 Oil-Water Separator Slop Oil Vessel

8-8-214 Oil-Water Separator Effluent

8-8-215 Sludge-dewatering Unit

8-8-216 Stormwater Sewer System

8-8-217 Junction Box

8-8-218 Sewer Line

8-8-300 STANDARDS

8-8-301 Wastewater Separators Designed Rated Capacity Greater Than 760 Liters

per Day and Smaller Than 18.9 Liters per Second

8-8-302 Wastewater Separators Rated Capacity Larger Than or Equal to 18.9 Liters

per Seconds

8-8-303 Gauging and Sampling Devices

8-8-304 Sludge-dewatering Unit

8-8-305 Oil-Water Separator and/or Air Flotation Unit Slop Oil Vessels

8-8-306 Oil-Water Separator Effluent Channel, Pond, Trench, or Basin

8-8-307 Air Flotation Unit

8-8-308 Junction Box
A-2

8-8-309 Deleted October 6, 1993

8-8-310 Deleted October 6, 1993

8-8-311 Deleted October 6, 1993

8-8-400 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

8-8-401 Deleted October 6, 1993

8-8-500 MONITORING AND RECORDS

8-8-501 API Separator or Air Flotation Bypassed Wastewater Records

8-8-502 Wastewater Critical OC Concentration and/or Temperature Records

8-8-503 Inspection and Repair Records

8-8-504 Portable Hydrocarbon Detector

8-8-600 MANUAL OF PROCEDURES

8-8-601 Wastewater Analysis for Critical OCs

8-8-602 Determination of Emissions

8-8-603 Inspection Procedures

REGULATION 8

ORGANIC COMPOUNDS

RULE 8

WASTEWATER (OIL-WATER) SEPARATORS

(Adopted January 17, 1979)

8-8-100 GENERAL

8-8-101 Description: The purpose of this Rule is to limit the emissions of precursor

organic compounds from wastewater (oil-water) separators, forebays, and air

flotation units which remove floating oil, floating emulsified oil, or other liquid

precursor organic compounds. (Amended November 1, 1989)

8-8-110 Exemption, Less Than 760 Liters: The requirements of Section 8-8-301

shall not apply to any wastewater separator which processes less than 760 liters

(200 gals.) per day of wastewater containing organic liquids. This exemption shall

not apply to wastewater separators at petroleum refinery complexes after March 1,

1980.

8-8-111 Deleted November 1, 1989

8-8-112 Exemption, Wastewater Critical OC Concentration and/or Temperature:

The requirements of Sections 8-8-301, 302, 306, 307, and 308 shall not apply to any

wastewater separator that processes influent wastewater less than 20 degrees C (68

o

F) and/or wastewater comprised of less than 1.0 ppm (volume) critical organic

compounds, as defined in Section 8-8-210, dissolved in the water samples, provided

that the requirements of Section 8-8-502 are met. (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-113 Exemption, Secondary Wastewater Treatment Processes And

Stormwater Sewer Systems: The requirements of Sections 8-8-301, 302, 306, and

308 shall not apply to any secondary wastewater treatment processes or stormwater

sewer systems, as defined in Sections 8-8-208 and 216, which are used as a

wastewater polishing step or collection of stormwater which is segregated from the

process wastewater collection system. (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-114 Exemption, Bypassed Oil-Water Separator or Air Flotation Influent: The

requirements of Sections 8-8-301, 302, and 307 shall not apply for wastewater which
A-3

bypasses either the oil-water separator or air flotation unit provided that: (1) the

requirements of Section 8-8-501 are met; and (2) on that day the District did not

predict an excess of the Federal Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. (Adopted

November 1, 1989)

8-8-115 Exemption, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Facilities: The

requirements of Sections 8-8-301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, and 308 shall not

apply to any publicly owned municipal wastewater treatment facility. (Adopted

November 1, 1989)

8-8-200 DEFINITIONS

8-8-201 Organic Compounds: For the purposes of this Rule, any organic

compound as defined in Section 8-8-210. (Amended November 1, 1989)

8-8-202 Wastewater (Oil-Water) Separator: Any device used to separate liquid

organic compounds from oil-water waste streams (excluding Wastewater Separator

Forebay, Air Flotation (AF) units, Sludge-dewatering Units, Oil-Water Separator and

/or AF Unit Slop Oil Vessels, and Junction Boxes). (Amended November 1, 1989)

8-8-203 Wastewater Separator Forebay: That section of a gravity-type separator

which (a) receives the untreated, contaminated wastewater from the pre-separator

flume, and (b) acts as a header which distributes the influent to the separator

channels. (Amended November 1, 1989)

8-8-204 Vapor-tight: The concentration of precursor organic compounds, measured

one centimeter from the source, shall not exceed 500 ppm (expressed as methane)

above background. (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-205 Oil-Water Separator Slop Oil: Floating oil, flocculent sludge, and solids

that accumulate in an oil-water separator or air flotation unit. (Adopted November 1,

1989)

8-8-206 Oil-Water Separator Effluent Channel/Pond: An open channel, trench,

pond, or basin that handles wastewater downstream of an oil-water separator that

has not been treated by an air flotation unit (usually located between the separator

and the air flotation unit). (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-207 Full Contact Fixed Cover: A stationary separator cover which is always in

full contact with the liquid surface of the oil-water separator. (Adopted November 1,

1989)

8-8-208 Secondary Treatment Processes: Any wastewater treatment process

which is downstream of the air flotation unit, any other biological treatment process

at a refinery, or any treatment process which is regulated by the U.S. EPA National

Categorical Pretreatment Standards. These treatment processes are considered to

be wastewater polishing steps and include: activated sludge tanks/basins, trickling or

sand filters, aerated lagoons, oxidation ponds, rotating biological contactors, and

other biological wastewater treatment processes. (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-209 Air Flotation Unit: Any device, equipment, or apparatus in which

wastewater is saturated with air or gas under pressure and removes floating oil,

floating emulsified oil, or other floating liquid precursor organic compounds by

skimming. Also included in this definition are: induced air flotation units and pre-air

flotation unit flocculent sumps, tanks, or basins. (Adopted November 1, 1989)
A-4

8-8-210 Critical Organic Compound (OC): Any compound of carbon, excluding

methane, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides,

carbonates and ammonium carbonate, or non-precursor organic compounds

(Methylene chloride, 1,1,1 trichloroethane, 1,1,2 trichlorotrifluoroethane (CFC-113),

trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC-12),

dichlorotetrafluoroethane (CFC-114), and chloropentafluoroethane (CFC-115),

emitted during separation, processing, or storage of wastewater, and having a

carbon number of C-14 or less (excluding phenolic compounds).(Adopted November

1, 1989)

8-8-211 Wastewater: Any process water which contains oil, emulsified oil, or other

organic compounds which is not recycled or otherwise used within a facility.

(Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-212 Pre-Air Flotation Unit Flocculation Sump, Basin, Chamber, or Tank:

Any facility which pretreats the air flotation unit's influent with chemical coagulants,

and/or adjusts the influent's pH. (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-213 Oil-Water Separator Slop Oil Vessel: Any vessel which, as its sole

function, treats or dewaters oil-water separator slop oil. (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-214 Oil-Water Separator Effluent: Any process wastewater downstream of the

oil-water separator that has not been treated by an air flotation unit. (Adopted

November 1, 1989)

8-8-215 Sludge-dewatering Unit: Any device which, as its sole function, is used to

dewater oil-water separator and air flotation slop oil/sludge. (Adopted November 1,

1989)

8-8-216 Stormwater Sewer System: A drain and collection system designed and

operated for the sole purpose of collecting stormwater and which is segregated from

the wastewater collection system. (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-217 Junction Box: A manhole or access point to a wastewater sewer system

line. (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-218 Sewer Line: A lateral, trunk line, branch line, ditch, channel, or other

conduit used to convey wastewater to downstream oil-water separators. (Adopted

November 1, 1989)

8-8-300 STANDARDS

8-8-301 Wastewater Separators Greater than 760 Liters per Day and Smaller

than 18.9 Liters per Second: A person shall not operate any wastewater separator

and/or forebay with a design rated or maximum allowable capacity greater than 760

liters per day and smaller than 18.9 liters per second (oil-water separators and/or

forebays between 200 gals per day to 300 gals per min.) unless such wastewater

separator and/or forebay is operated within its design rated or maximum allowable

capacity and is equipped with one of the following:

301.1 A solid, gasketed, fixed cover totally enclosing the separator tank,

chamber, or basin (compartment) liquid contents, with all cover openings

closed, except when the opening is being used for inspection, maintenance,

or wastewater sampling. Roof seals, access doors, and other openings shall

be checked by visual inspection initially and semiannually thereafter to ensure
A-5

that no cracks or gaps greater than 0.32 cm (0.125 inch) occur in the roof or

between the roof and wall; and that the access doors and other openings are

closed and gasketed properly; or

301.2 A floating pontoon or double-deck vapor-tight type cover. All floating

roofs must rest entirely on the liquid surface. The floating roof shall consist of

two seals, one above the other, the one below shall be referred to as the

primary seal, while the other seal shall be referred to as the secondary seal.

2.1 Oil-Water Separator Liquid-Mounted Primary Seal Gap Criteria: No

gap between the separator wall and the liquid-mounted primary seal

shall exceed 3.8 cm (1.5 inch). No continuous gap greater than 0.32

cm (0.125 inch) shall exceed 10 percent of the perimeter of the

separator. The cumulative length of all primary seal gaps exceeding

1.3 cm (0.5 inch) shall be not more than 10 percent of the perimeter

and the cumulative length of all primary seal gaps exceeding 0.32 cm

(0.125 inch) shall be not more than 40 percent of the perimeter.

2.2 Oil-Water Separator Secondary And Wiper Seals Gap Criteria: No

gap between the separator wall and the secondary and wiper seals

shall exceed 1.5 mm (0.06 inch). The cumulative length of all

secondary and wiper seals gaps exceeding 0.5 mm (0.02 inch) shall be

not more than 5 percent of the perimeter of the separator. The

secondary and wiper seals must exert a positive pressure against the

separator such that the seal surface in contact with the separator wall

does not pull away from the separator wall more than the gaps

allowed.

2.3 Primary And Secondary Seal Gap Inspection: The primary seal

shall be inspected within 60 calendar days after initial installation of the

floating roof and once every 5 years thereafter in accordance with the

requirements of Subsection 8-8-301.2.2.1. The secondary seal shall be

inspected within 60 calendar days after initial installation of the floating

roof and once every year thereafter in accordance with the

requirements of Subsection 8-8-301.2.2.2. The owner or operator shall

make necessary repairs within 30 calendar days of identification of

seals not meeting the requirements listed in Subsections 8-8-301.2.1

and 301.2.2.2.; or

301.3 An OC vapor recovery system with a combined collection and

destruction efficiency of at least 95 percent, by weight.

301.4 Deleted October 6, 1993 (Amended November 1, 1989; October 6,

1993)

8-8-302 Wastewater Separators Larger than or Equal to 18.9 Liters per

Second: A person shall not operate any wastewater separator and/or forebay

with a rated or maximum allowable capacity larger than or equal to 18.9 liters per

second (300 gals per min.) unless such wastewater separator and/or forebay is

operated within its design rated or maximum allowable capacity and is equipped

with one of the following:
A-6

302.1 A solid, vapor-tight, full contact fixed cover which totally encloses the

separator tank, chamber, or basin (compartment) liquid contents, with all

cover openings closed and sealed, except when the opening is being used for

inspection, maintenance, or wastewater sampling; or

302.2 A floating pontoon or double-deck vapor-tight type cover. All floating

roofs must rest on the liquid surface. The floating roof shall consist of two

seals, one above the other, the one below shall be referred to as the primary

seal, while the other seal shall be referred to as the secondary seal.

2.1 Oil-Water Separator Liquid-Mounted Primary Seal Gap Criteria: No

gap between the separator wall and the liquid-mounted primary seal

shall exceed 3.8 cm (1.5 inch). No continuous gap greater than 0.32

cm (0.125 inch) shall exceed 10 percent of the perimeter of the

separator. The cumulative length of all primary seal gaps exceeding

1.3 cm (0.5 inch) shall be not more than 10 percent of the perimeter

and the cumulative length of all primary seal gaps exceeding 0.32 cm

(0.125 inch) shall be not more than 40 percent of the perimeter.

2.2 Oil-Water Separator Secondary And Wiper Seals Gap Criteria: No

gap between the separator wall and the secondary and wiper seals

shall exceed 1.5 mm (0.06 inch). The cumulative length of all

secondary and wiper seals gaps exceeding 0.5 mm (0.02 inch) shall be

not more than 5 percent of the perimeter of the separator. The

secondary and wiper seals must exert a positive pressure against the

separator such that the seal surface in contact with the separator wall

does not pull away from the separator wall more than the gaps

allowed; or

2.3 Primary And Secondary Seal Gap Inspection: The primary seal

shall be inspected within 60 calendar days after initial installation of the

floating roof and once every 5 years thereafter in accordance with the

requirements of Subsection 8-8-302.2.2.1. The secondary seal shall be

inspected within 60 calendar days after initial installation of the floating

roof and once every year thereafter in accordance with the

requirements of Subsection 8-8-302.2.2.2. The owner or operator shall

make necessary repairs within 30 calendar days of identification of

seals not meeting the requirements listed in Subsections 8-8-302.2.2.1

and 302.2.2.2.; or

302.3 A vapor-tight fixed cover with an OC vapor recovery system which

has a combined collection and destruction efficiency of at least 95 percent,

by weight, inspection and access hatches shall be closed except when the

opening is being used for inspection, maintenance, or wastewater

sampling, or

302.4 A solid, sealed, gasketed, fixed cover which totally encloses the

separator tank, chamber, or basin (compartment) liquid contents, with all

cover openings closed and sealed, except when the opening is being used

for inspection, maintenance, or wastewater sampling. The cover may

include a pressure/vacuum valve. The concentration of precursor organic

compounds, measured one centimeter from the roof seals, fixed cover,
A-7

access doors, pressure/vacuum valve, and other openings shall not

exceed 1,000 ppm (expressed as methane) above background. Roof

seals, fixed cover, access doors, and other openings shall be inspected

initially and semiannually thereafter to ensure that there are no emission

leaks greater than 1,000 ppm. Any emission leak greater than 1,000 ppm

must be reported to the APCO and repaired within 15 days.

302.5 Deleted October 6, 1993 (Adopted November 1, 1989; Amended

October 6, 1993)

8-8-303 Gauging and Sampling Devices: Any compartment or access hatch

shall have a vapor tight cover. Any gauging and sampling device in the

compartment cover shall be equipped with a vapor tight cover, seal, or lid. The

compartment cover and gauging or sampling device cover shall at all times be in

a closed position, except when the device is in use for inspection, maintenance,

or wastewater sampling. (Amended, Renumbered November 1, 1989)

8-8-304 Sludge-dewatering Unit: Any sludge-dewatering unit, equipment,

machinery, apparatus, or device shall be totally enclosed and vented to a control

device which has a minimum combined collection and destruction efficiency of 95

percent by weight; or shall have vapor-tight covers on the unit, conveyer belts,

and storage bins or tanks except during inspection, maintenance or when the

solids storage bin is in use. (Adopted November 1, 1989; Amended October 6,

1993)

8-8-305 Oil-Water Separator And/Or Air Flotation Unit Slop Oil Vessels: A

person shall not store any oil-water separator and/or air flotation unit sludges in

an oil-water separator slop oil vessel unless such oil-water separator slop oil

vessel is equipped with one of the following:

305.1 A solid, gasketed, fixed cover totally enclosing the vessel liquid

contents, with all cover openings closed, except when the opening is being

used for inspection, maintenance, or wastewater sampling. The cover may

include an atmospheric vent or a pressure/vacuum valve. Roof seals, access

doors, and other openings shall be checked by visual inspection initially and

semiannually thereafter to ensure that no cracks or gaps greater than 0.32 cm

(0.125 inch) occur in the roof or between the roof and wall; and that the

access doors and other openings are closed and gasketed properly; or

305.2 An OC vapor recovery system with a combined collection and

destruction efficiency of at least 70 percent, by weight.

305.3 Deleted October 6, 1993 (Adopted November 1, 1989; Amended

October 6, 1993)

8-8-306 Oil-Water Separator Effluent Channel, Pond, Trench, or Basin: A

person shall not operate any oil-water separator effluent channel, pond, trench,

or basin a design rated or maximum allowable capacity greater than 25.2 liters

per second (any oil-water separator effluent channel, pond, trench, or basin

greater than 400 gals per min) unless such oil-water separator effluent channel,
A-8

pond, trench, or basin is operated within its design rated or maximum allowable

capacity and is equipped with one of the following:

306.1 A solid, gasketed, fixed cover totally enclosing the oil-water separator

effluent channel, pond, trench, or basin (compartment) liquid contents, with all

cover openings closed, except when the opening is being used for inspection,

maintenance, or wastewater sampling. Roof seals, access doors, and other

openings shall be checked by visual inspection initially and semiannually

thereafter to ensure that no cracks or gaps greater than 0.32 cm (0.125 inch)

occur in the roof or between the roof and wall; and that the access doors and

other openings are closed and gasketed properly; or

306.2 An OC vapor recovery system with a combined collection and

destruction efficiency of at least 70 percent, by weight.

306.3 Deleted October 6, 1993 (Adopted November 1, 1989; Amended

October 6, 1993)

8-8-307 Air Flotation Unit: A person shall not operate any air flotation unit

and/or pre-air flotation unit flocculation sump, basin, chamber, or tank with a

design rated or maximum allowable capacity greater than 25.2 liters per second

(air flotation units and/or pre-air flotation unit flocculation sump, basin, chamber,

or tank greater than 400 gals per min.) unless such air flotation unit and/or pre-air

flotation unit flocculation sump, basin, chamber, or tank is operated within its

design rated or maximum allowable capacity and is equipped with one of the

following:

307.1 A solid, gasketed, fixed cover totally enclosing the air flotation and preair-flotation-unit flocculation tank, chamber, or basin (compartment) liquid

contents, with all cover openings closed, except when the opening is being

used for inspection, maintenance, or wastewater sampling. The cover may

include an atmospheric vent or pressure/vacuum valve. Roof seals, access

doors, and other openings shall be checked by visual inspection initially and

semiannually thereafter to ensure that no cracks or gaps greater than 0.32 cm

(0.125 inch) occur in the roof or between the roof and wall; and that the

access doors and other openings are closed and gasketed properly; or

307.2 An OC vapor recovery system with a combined collection and

destruction efficiency of at least 70 percent, by weight.

307.3 Deleted October 6, 1993 (Adopted November 1, 1989; Amended

October 6, 1993)

8-8-308 Junction Box: Any junction box shall be equipped with either a solid,

gasketed, fixed cover totally enclosing the junction box or a solid manhole cover.

Junction boxes may include openings in the covers and vent pipes if the total

open area of the junction box does not exceed 81.3 cm2 (12.6 in2) and all vent

pipes are at least 3 feet in length.(Adopted November 1, 1989; Amended October

6, 1993)

8-8-309 Deleted October 6, 1993
A-9

8-8-310 Deleted October 6, 1993

8-8-311 Deleted October 6, 1993

8-8-400 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

8-8-401 Deleted October 6, 1993

8-8-500 MONITORING AND RECORDS

8-8-501 API Separator or Air Flotation Bypassed Wastewater Records: Any

person who bypasses wastewater past their API Separator or Air Flotation unit shall

maintain records on the amount of bypassed wastewater, duration, date, causes for

bypasses, and dissolved critical OC concentration (volume). These records shall be

retained and available for inspection by the APCO for at least 24 months. (Adopted

November 1, 1989)

8-8-502 Wastewater Critical OC Concentration And/Or Temperature Records:

Any person who exempts their wastewater separator because of either wastewater

critical OC concentration or temperature shall sample and test the wastewater

initially and semiannually thereafter and maintain records on the date, time of test,

location, and wastewater temperature and/or critical OC concentration (volume).

These records shall be retained and available for inspection by the APCO for at least

24 months. (Adopted November 1, 1989)

8-8-503 Inspection and Repair Records: Records of inspections and repairs as

required by Sections 8-8-301, 302, 305, 306 or 307 shall be retained and made

available for inspection by the APCO for at least 24 months. (Adopted October 6,

1993)

8-8-504 Portable Hydrocarbon Detector: Any instrument used for the

measurement of organic compounds shall be a gas detector that meets the

specifications and performance criteria of and has been calibrated in accordance

with U.S. EPA Reference Method 21 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A). Adopted June 15,

1994)

8-8-600 MANUAL OF PROCEDURES

8-8-601 Wastewater Analysis for Critical OCs: Samples of wastewater as

specified in this rule shall be taken at the influent stream for each unit and analyzed

for the concentration of dissolved critical organic compounds as prescribed in the

Manual of Procedures, Volume III, Lab Method 33.(Amended November 1, 1989;

October 6, 1993)

8-8-602 Determination of Emissions: Emissions of precursor organic compounds

as specified in Sections 8-8-301.3, 8-8-302.3, 8-8-304, 8-8-305.2, 8-8-306.2, and 8-

8-307.2 shall be measured as prescribed by any of the following methods: 1)
A-10

BAAMQD Manual of Procedures, Volume IV, ST-7, 2) U.S. EPA Method 25, or 25A).

A source shall be considered in violation if the VOC emissions measured by any of

the referenced test methods exceed the standards of this rule.(Amended November

1, 1989; October 6, 1993, June15, 1994)

8-8-603 Inspection Procedures: For the purposes of Sections 8-8-301, 302, 303

and 304, leaks shall be measured using a portable gas detector as prescribed in

U.S. EPA Reference Method 21 (40 CFR 60, Appendix A). (Adopted June 15, 1994)
Appendix B

United States Environmental Protection Agency

New Source Performance Standards

For Refinery Process Drains

(40CFR60.692-2)
B-1

§60.692-2 Standards: Individual drain systems.

(a)(1) Each drain shall be equipped with water seal controls.

(2) Each drain in active service shall be checked by visual or physical inspection initially

and monthly thereafter for indications of low water levels or other conditions that would

reduce the effectiveness of the water seal controls.

(3) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, each drain out of active

service shall be checked by visual or physical inspection initially and weekly thereafter

for indications of low water levels or other problems that could result in VOC emissions.

(4) As an alternative to the requirements in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, if an owner

or operator elects to install a tightly sealed cap or plug over a drain that is out of service,

inspections shall be conducted initially and semiannually to ensure caps or plugs are in

place and properly installed.

(5) Whenever low water levels or missing or improperly installed caps or plugs are

identified, water shall be added or first efforts at repair shall be made as soon as

practicable, but not later than 24 hours after detection, except as provided in §60.692-6.

(b)(1) Junction boxes shall be equipped with a cover and may have an open vent pipe.

The vent pipe shall be at least 90 cm (3 ft) in length and shall not exceed 10.2 cm (4 in)

in diameter.

(2) Junction box covers shall have a tight seal around the edge and shall be kept in

place at all times, except during inspection and maintenance.

(3) Junction boxes shall be visually inspected initially and semiannually thereafter to

ensure that the cover is in place and to ensure that the cover has a tight seal around the

edge.

(4) If a broken seal or gap is identified, first effort at repair shall be made as soon as

practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after the broken seal or gap is identified,

except as provided in §60.692-6.

(c)(1) Sewer lines shall not be open to the atmosphere and shall be covered or

enclosed in a manner so as to have no visual gaps or cracks in joints, seals, or other

emission interfaces.

(2) The portion of each unburied sewer line shall be visually inspected initially and

semiannually thereafter for indication of cracks, gaps, or other problems that could

result in VOC emissions.

(3) Whenever cracks, gaps, or other problems are detected, repairs shall be made as

soon as practicable, but not later than 15 calendar days after identification, except as

provided in §60.692-6.

(d) Except as provided in paragraph (e) of this section, each modified or reconstructed

individual drain system that has a catch basin in the existing configuration prior to May

4, 1987 shall be exempt from the provisions of this section.

(e) Refinery wastewater routed through new process drains and a new first common

downstream junction box, either as part of a new individual drain system or an existing

individual drain system, shall not be routed through a downstream catch basin.

§60.692-5 Standards: Closed vent systems and control devices.

(a) Enclosed combustion devices shall be designed and operated to reduce the VOC

emissions vented to them with an efficiency of 95 percent or greater or to provide a
B-2

minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds at a minimum temperature of 816 °C (1,500

°F).

(b) Vapor recovery systems (for example, condensers and adsorbers) shall be designed

and operated to recover the VOC emissions vented to them with an efficiency of 95

percent or greater.

(c) Flares used to comply with this subpart shall comply with the requirements of 40

CFR 60.18.

(d) Closed vent systems and control devices used to comply with provisions of this

subpart shall be operated at all times when emissions may be vented to them.

(e)(1) Closed vent systems shall be designed and operated with no detectable

emissions, as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 ppm above

background, as determined during the initial and semiannual inspections by the

methods specified in §60.696.

(2) Closed vent systems shall be purged to direct vapor to the control device.

(3) A flow indicator shall be installed on a vent stream to a control device to ensure that

the vapors are being routed to the device.

(4) All gauging and sampling devices shall be gas-tight except when gauging or

sampling is taking place.

(5) When emissions from a closed system are detected, first efforts at repair to eliminate

the emissions shall be made as soon as practicable, but not later than 30 calendar days

from the date the emissions are detected, except as provided in §60.692-6.
Appendix C

South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1176

(VOC Emissions from Wastewater Systems)
C-1

SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

(Adopted November 3, 1989)(Amended January 5, 1990)

(Amended May 13, 1994) (Amended September 13, 1996)

RULE 1176. VOC EMISSIONS FROM WASTEWATER SYSTEMS

(a) Purpose

This rule is intended to limit volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from

wastewater systems.

(b) Applicability

This rule applies to wastewater systems and associated control equipment located at

petroleum refineries, on-shore oil production fields, off-shore oil production platforms,

chemical plants, and industrial facilities.

(c) Definitions

For purposes of this rule, the following definitions apply:

1. CATCH BASIN is an open basin which serves as a single collection point for

rainwater or stormwater run-off directly from ground surfaces.

2. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL (APC) DEVICE means air pollution control

equipment which eliminates, reduces or controls the issuance of air

contaminants.

3. BACKGROUND LEVEL is the ambient concentration of VOC in the air as

measured pursuant to paragraph (h)(1).

4. CERTIFIED INSPECTOR is a person who has successfully completed a District

approved fugitive emissions compliance inspection program and holds a current

valid inspector certificate issued by the Executive Officer.

5. CERTIFIED INSTRUCTOR is a person who has successfully completed a

District fugitive emissions compliance inspection program or any other program

determined to be equivalent and approved by the Executive Officer and holds a

current valid instructors certificate issued by the Executive Officer.

6. CHEMICAL PLANT is any facility engaged in producing chemicals, and/or

manufacturing products by chemical processes. Any facility or operation that has

282 as the first three digits in its Standard Industrial Classification Code as

defined in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual is included in this

definition.

7. CLOSED VENT SYSTEM is a system that is not open to the atmosphere and

that is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and if necessary, flowinducing devices that collect and transport gas or vapor from an emission source

to an APC device or into gas recovery and/or combustion equipment. In that

case, gas recovery and/or combustion equipment shall not be considered a

closed vent system and is not subject to closed vent system standards.

8. DRAIN SYSTEM COMPONENT (DSC) is a process drain, manhole cover,

junction box vent or other wastewater system vent, excluding closed vent

systems. DSCs are categorized as follows:

(A) NON-EMITTING DSC is a DSC which is controlled using a gas tight barrier

between the sewer and the atmosphere that for the most recent six month period

does not emit VOC emissions, or is a DSC which is uncontrolled that for the most
C-2

recent 24 month period does not emit VOC emissions, as measured pursuant to

paragraph (h)(1) in excess of 10 ppm above background level.

(B) LOW-EMITTING DSC is a DSC that has not emitted excess emissions for the

most recent six month period or is effectively controlled pursuant to

subparagraph (e)(7)(A).

(C) HIGH-EMITTING DSC is a DSC that has at least one excess emission in the

most recent six months.

(D) REPEAT-EMITTING DSC is a petroleum refinery DSC that has emitted

excess emissions at least three times during any consecutive 12 months, unless

it has been effectively controlled pursuant to subparagraph (e)(7)(A).

9. DSC CONTROL is any control measure for a DSC which utilizes water seal

controls, APC devices, hardpiping, or complete capping, plugging, or source

elimination. Any other alternate control measure such as permanent source

reduction may qualify as a DSC control, if approved in writing by the Executive

Officer.

10.EXCESS EMISSIONS are VOC emissions measured pursuant to paragraph

(h)(1) to be greater than 500 ppm above background levels.

11.FIXED COVER is any impermeable cover installed in a permanent stationary

position.

12.FLOATING COVER is any impermeable cover which is in contact with a liquid

surface at all times.

13.INACCESSIBLE DSC is any DSC located over 15 feet above ground when

access is required from the ground; or any component located over six feet away

from a platform when access is required from a platform; or any component

which would require the elevation of monitoring personnel higher than six feet

above permanent support surfaces. Inaccessible DSCs do not include DSC vents

and wastewater system associated vents, where the vent pipes are extended

more than four feet in length.

14.INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES are those engaged in the production and distribution

of natural gas, pipeline distribution or wholesale distribution of crude petroleum

and petroleum products , as classified under the Standard Industrial

Classification group numbers 492, or 461, respectively, of the Standard Industrial

Classification Manual.

15.JUNCTION BOX is a structure with a manhole or access point to a wastewater

sewer system lines.

16.NON-CONTACT WATER is any water which does not come into contact with

wastewater.

17.OIL PRODUCTION FIELD is a facility at which crude petroleum production and

handling are conducted, as defined in the Standard Industrial Classification

Manual as Industry No. 1311, Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas.

18.PETROLEUM REFINERY is a facility that processes petroleum, as defined in the

Standard Industrial Classification Manual as Industry No. 2911, Petroleum

Refining.

19.PROCESS DRAIN is any opening (including covered or controlled openings)

which is installed or used to receive or convey wastewater into the wastewater

system.
C-3

20.SEPARATOR FOREBAY is that section of a gravity-type separator which

receives the untreated wastewater from the preseparator flume and acts as a

header which distributes the influent to the separator channels.

21.SEWER LINE is a lateral trunk line, branch line, ditch, channel, or other conduit

used to convey wastewater.

22.SUMP is a surface impoundment or excavated depression in the ground, which

is part of the wastewater system and used for storage of wastewater or

separation of petroleum liquids, VOC containing liquids, water, and/or solids.

23.VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) is as defined in Rule 102.

24.WASTEWATER is a water stream or other liquid waste stream generated in a

manner which may contain petroleum liquid, emulsified oil, VOC, or other

hydrocarbons.

25.WASTEWATER SEPARATOR is any device, used to separate petroleum liquids

and/or VOC containing liquids from wastewater including such devices as

separator forebays, clarifiers and tanks including dissolved air flotation tanks,

induced gas flotation tanks and induced air flotation tanks.

26.WASTEWATER SYSTEM is any system which consists of one or more process

drains, sewer lines, junction boxes, manholes, sumps, or wastewater separators,

including all of their associated components, used to receive, convey, separate,

treat, or process wastewater.

27.WATER SEAL CONTROL is a seal pot, p-leg trap, or other type of trap filled with

any non-VOC containing liquid to create a liquid barrier between the sewer and

the atmosphere.

(d) Identification Requirements

The facility operator shall comply with the following provisions:

1. Requirements for Facilities other than Petroleum Refineries:

Within 60 days of written request by the Executive Officer, submit a detailed

schematic drawing identifying the location within the facility of all the components

of the wastewater system and all associated APC devices. In lieu of identifying

the locations of the DSCs on the schematic, the DSCs locations may be

identified on a separate list attached to the schematic.

2. Requirements for Petroleum Refineries:

By June 30, 1997, submit to the District a compliance plan which shall include

the following:

(A) A statement regarding which compliance option listed in either

subparagraphs (e)(7)(A) or (e)(7)(B) has been chosen; and

(B) A detailed schematic drawing of the location of the wastewater system, within

the facility. The schematic shall also include all of the APC devices associated

with the wastewater system; and

(C) A complete DSC list identifying their total number, individual location and if

controlled, the type of DSC control. The list shall also identify each DSC as either

non-emitting, low-emitting, high-emitting, or repeat-emitting according to the

initial monitoring frequency in subparagraph (f)(1)(A). Historical monitoring data

collected during the most recent 12 months may be used to categorize each DSC

in lieu of subparagraph (f)(1)(A), except for uncontrolled non-emitting DSCs
C-4

which shall be required to use the most recent 24 months of historical data. Any

inaccessible DSC shall be identified for District’s verification and approval; and

(D) Historical monitoring data and/or the monitoring data collected pursuant to

subparagraph (f)(1)(A) used to categorize each DSC, and

(E) An identification of the proposed methods of control, if necessary, for each

junction box vent based on its emission characteristics; and

(F) Any alternate DSC control which is not already identified in paragraph (c)(9)

and the operator requests approval in advance by the Executive Officer for use

as a DSC control. A complete description of the proposed DSC control and its

specific applications shall be included.

(e) Operation and Control Requirements

The facility operator shall comply with the following provisions:

1. Wastewater System Emissions:

Wastewater systems and closed vent systems, except sump and wastewater

separator covers in compliance with clause (e)(2)(B)(vi), shall not emit VOC

emissions measured pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) to be greater than 500 ppm

above background levels according to the compliance dates in Table 1. The

compliance date in Table 1 may be extended pursuant to subparagraphs

(e)(2)(C) and (e)(5)(B).

Table 1

EQUIPMENT COMPLIANCE

DATE

Separator forebays, clarifiers, dissolved air flotation tanks, induced

gas flotation tanks, and induced air flotation tanks which are not

controlled.

June 30, 1997

Sumps which are not controlled. June 30, 1997

Junction box vents and manhole cover openings. June 30, 1997

All other parts of the wastewater system not specifically listed

above. November 3, 1989

2. Sumps and Wastewater Separators :

(A) Sumps and Wastewater Separators shall be provided with one of the

following except as provided in subparagraph (e)(2)(C):

(i) A floating cover equipped with seals.

(ii) A fixed cover, equipped with a closed vent system vented to an APC

device as specified in paragraph (e)(6).

(iii) Any other alternate control measure which is demonstrated by the

facility operator to be equivalent to, or more effective in reducing VOC

emissions than the requirements of clauses (e)(2)(A)(i) or (e)(2)(A)(ii),

and approved in writing by the Executive Officer.

(B) Sump and Wastewater Separator Covers, both fixed and floating, shall meet

all of the following requirements:

(i) The cover material shall be impermeable to VOCs, and free from holes,

tears, or openings.
C-5

(ii) Drains on covers shall be provided with a slotted membrane fabric

cover, or equivalent, over at least 90 percent of the open area.

(iii) Gauging or sampling openings on the separator shall be covered. The

covers shall be kept closed, with no visible gaps between the cover and the

separator, except when the gauging or sampling device is actively being

used.

(iv) Hatches on covers shall be kept closed and free of gaps, except when

opened for active inspection, maintenance, sampling, or repair.

(v) The perimeter of a cover, except for a floating cover, shall form a seal

free of gaps with the foundation to which it is attached.

(vi) A floating cover shall be designed and maintained so that the gap

between the separator or sump wall and the seal does not exceed 1/8 inch

for a cumulative length of 97 percent of the perimeter of the separator. No

gap between the wall and the seal shall exceed 1/2 inch.

(C) For initial modification of sumps, separator forebays, clarifiers, dissolved air

flotation tanks, induced gas flotation tanks, or induced air flotation tanks to

comply with subparagraphs (e)(2)(A) and (e)(2)(B) which require a permit to

construct, compliance with paragraph (e)(1) and subparagraphs (e)(2)(A) and

(e)(2)(B) shall be achieved no later than six months after the District issues the

initial permit to construct, provided that a complete application for a permit to

construct is submitted to the District on or before November 13, 1996.

3. Sewer lines:

(A) All sewer lines shall be completely enclosed so that no liquid surface is

exposed to the atmosphere. The manhole cover shall remain fully closed, except

when opened for active inspection, maintenance, sampling, or repair.

(B) By June 30, 1997, all openings in the sewer line manhole covers shall be

completely sealed.

4. Process drains:

Any new process drain installed after September 13, 1996, shall be equipped

with water seal controls or any other alternative control measure which is

demonstrated by the applicant to be equivalent, or more effective than water seal

controls in reducing VOC emissions, as approved in writing by the Executive

Officer.

5. Junction boxes:

(A) Junction boxes shall be totally enclosed with a solid, gasketed, fixed cover or

a manhole cover. Each fixed cover shall be allowed to have an open vent pipe no

more than four inches in diameter and at least three feet in length. Each manhole

cover on junction boxes shall be allowed to have openings totaling no more than

12 square inches. The manhole cover shall remain fully closed, except when

opened for active inspection, maintenance, sampling, or repair.

(B) For initial modification of junction boxes to comply with paragraph (e)(1),

compliance shall be achieved no later than six months after the District issues

the initial permit to construct for the DSC controls which require a permit to
C-6

construct, provided that a complete application for a permit to construct is

submitted to the District on or before June 30, 1997.

6. APC Devices shall meet one of the following requirements:

(A) An APC device receiving vapors from a closed vent system shall achieve a

control efficiency of 95 percent by weight or greater of VOC. An annual

performance test shall be conducted to determine the APC device control

efficiency according to the test method specified in paragraph (h)(3),

(B) The outlet of the APC device shall not emit VOC emissions measured

pursuant to paragraphs (h)(1) or (h)(2) to be greater than 500 ppm above

background. The frequency of monitoring shall be at least monthly, or

(C) Any APC device or other alternate system that collects vapors through a

closed vent system and subsequently controls the vapors in a device, which has

been issued a permit to construct or a permit to operate by the Executive Officer,

and determined by the Executive Officer to provide an equivalent level of VOC

emission controls as specified in subparagraphs (e)(6)(A) or (e)(6)(B).

7. Additional Requirements for DSCs at Petroleum Refineries:

Comply with the control requirements of either subparagraphs (e)(7)(A) or

(e)(7)(B) according to the schedule specified in these subparagraphs.

(A) Control of Repeat Emitting DSCs:

Within 60 days or longer, as approved by the Executive Officer, after a DSC

becomes a repeat emitting DSC, effectively control the DSC by installing a DSC

control, if previously uncontrolled, or a more efficient DSC control to eliminate

excess emissions from the DSC.

(B) Control of All DSCs:

DSC controls shall be installed on all DSCs that are uncontrolled as of

September 13, 1996, according to the following schedule:

(i) At least 25 percent of uncontrolled DSCs by December 31, 1997,

(ii) At least 50 percent of uncontrolled DSCs by December 31, 1998,

(iii) At least 75 percent of uncontrolled DSCs by December 31, 1999, and

(iv) 100 percent of uncontrolled DSCs by December 31, 2000.

(f) Inspection, Monitoring and Maintenance Requirements

The facility operator shall comply with the following provisions:

1. Inspection and Monitoring Frequency:

Wastewater systems and closed vent system(s) shall be inspected and

monitored according to the following monitoring frequency:

(A) For Petroleum Refineries Choosing Option (e)(7)(A):

Inspect and monitor wastewater separators, closed vent systems, and all DSCs

monthly until the compliance plan is submitted pursuant to paragraph (d)(2). After

the compliance plan is submitted:

(i) Inspect and monitor the wastewater system according to Table 2, or

(ii) After June 30, 1997, inspect and monitor the wastewater system

according to Table 2, except that low-emitting DSCs may be monitored
C-7

semi-annually, provided that:

(I) 0.5 percent or less of all DSCs, have emitted excess emissions

as measured pursuant to paragraph (h)(1) for the most recent 12

month period, and

(II) The above is substantiated by documentation of the verified

inspection and monitoring records, and submitted to the District for

written approval by the Executive Officer.

The inspection and monitoring frequency, approved in clause (f)(1)(A)(ii),

shall revert to clause (f)(1)(A)(i), should the facility operator’s inspection

records or District inspection show that greater than 0.5 percent of all

DSCs have emitted excess emissions measured pursuant to paragraph

(h)(1) in excess of the level specified in subclause (f)(1)(A)(ii)(I).

Table 2

EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

Wastewater separator(s) and associated closed vent system(s) Monthly

High-Emitting DSCs Monthly

Low-Emitting DSCs Quarterly

Non-Emitting DSCs Semi-annually

Inaccessible DSCs Annually

(B) Petroleum Refineries Choosing Option (e)(7)(B):

(i) Inspect and monitor wastewater separators, closed vent systems, and all

DSCs monthly until the compliance plan is submitted pursuant to

paragraph (d)(2).

(ii) After the compliance plan is submitted, inspect and monitor the

wastewater system according to Table 3.

Table 3

EQUIPMENT FREQUENCY

Wastewater separator(s) and associated closed vent system(s). Monthly

DSCs (Excluding Non-Emitting DSCs) Quarterly

Non-Emitting DSCs Semi-annually

Inaccessible DSCs Annually

(C) For Oil Production Fields, Chemical Plants, and Industrial Facilities:

Effective September 13, 1996, inspect and monitor wastewater separator(s),

associated closed vent system(s) and DSCs quarterly, except that non-emitting

DSCs and inaccessible DSCs, may be inspected annually.

2. On or after July 1, 1997, or a later date as approved in writing by the Executive

Officer, all inspections and monitoring required under paragraph (f)(1) shall be

done by a certified inspector.

3. Wastewater systems with excess emissions or otherwise found in violation

through either operator inspection or District inspection shall be repaired or

rectified within three calendar days of detection. The repaired or rectified
C-8

component shall be reinspected by the facility operator between 24 hours to 48

hours for petroleum refineries and between 24 hours to 15 calendar days for

other facilities after the repair or rectification to ensure that the repaired or

rectified component is in compliance with this rule. The operator shall take all

feasible steps to minimize emissions during the repair or replacement period.

(g) Recordkeeping, Reporting and Verification of Records Requirements

The facility operator shall comply with the following provisions:

1. Recordkeeping:

(A) All records shall be maintained at the facility for a period of two years and

made available to District staff upon request.

(B) Any operator using an APC device for a wastewater system as a means of

complying with this rule, shall maintain records of system operation or

maintenance which will demonstrate proper operation and compliance of the

APC device during periods of emission producing activities.

(C) Inspection records for the wastewater system shall be made and documented

as follows:

(i) The inspection record shall include and document all written or

machine recorded operator inspections, VOC measurements including

corresponding background levels, source tests, repairs, replacements, and

reinspection records.

(ii) The inspection record shall include the date(s) they were taken.

(iii) The inspection record shall include the name and signature of the

certified inspector(s). An electronic identification code may be used

instead of a signature provided that the certified inspector verifies, in

writing, that he or she has conducted the inspection and monitoring.

2. Reporting requirements for refineries:

(A) Any change to the wastewater system or any other component required to be

identified by paragraph (d)(2), shall be submitted to the District within 60 calendar

days after construction is completed.

(B) For facility operators complying with subparagraph (e)(7)(A), a quarterly

report shall be submitted to the District in a format approved by the Executive

Officer, within 30 calendar days after the end of each quarter. The report shall

include all of the following:

(i) The identification of all DSCs with recordings of excess emissions and

the corresponding levels of emissions in ppm,

(ii) The identification of repeat emitting drains including each record of

excess emissions and subsequent repairs within the last 12 months before

corrective actions,

(iii) The corrective actions taken pursuant to subpara-graph (e)(7)(A), and

(iv) Each monitoring record after corrective actions until the report is

submitted.
C-9

(C) For facility operators complying with subparagraph (e)(7)(B), semi-annual

reports shall be submitted to the District, each within 30 days after the end of

each six month period, showing:

(i) Which DSCs identified in paragraph (d)(2) have been controlled and

the type of control, until all DSCs are controlled, and

(ii) All DSCs identified to have an excess emission.

3. Verification of Records:

All inspection records and reports submitted to the District, shall be signed by the

facility official with responsibility for operation of the equipment subject to this

rule, to verify that the inspection(s) have been conducted by certified inspectors

consistent with the requirements of this rule.

4. Any inaccurate verification of inspection records shall constitute a violation of this

rule.

(h) Test Methods

1. U.S. EPA Reference Method 21:

Measurement of gaseous VOC concentration shall be conducted according to

U.S. EPA Reference Method 21, using an appropriate analyzer calibrated with

methane, or any other method demonstrated by the applicant to be equivalent

and approved in writing by the Executive Officers of the District, the California Air

Resources Board (CARB), and the Regional Administrator of the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region IX, or their designees.

Background level shall be measured using the Method 21 procedure for

determining local ambient concentration around the source.

2. District Grab Sample Method:

Sampling and analysis shall be conducted according to the test methods

contained in Attachment A, or any other procedure and method demonstrated by

the applicant to be equivalent and approved in writing by the Executive Officers

of the District, the CARB, and the Regional Administrator of the U.S. EPA, Regio

n IX, or their designees.

3. U.S. EPA Reference Method 25:

Measurement of control efficiency of an air pollution control device shall be

conducted according to U.S. EPA Reference Method 25, District Test Method

25.1, or any other method demonstrated by the applicant to be equivalent and

approved in writing by the Executive Officers of the District, the CARB, and the

Regional Administrator of the U.S. EPA, Region IX, or their designees. Emissions

determined to exceed any limits established by this rule through either of the

referenced test methods in paragraph (h)(3) shall constitute a violation of this

rule. Test procedures shall be performed in accordance with a protocol approved

by the Executive Officer.

(i) Exemptions

Specified provisions of this rule shall not apply if the wastewater system meets the

applicable criteria shown below. Any person seeking to qualify for any one of the

following exemptions has the burden of proving its wastewater system meets the

applicable specified criteria:
C-10

1. The provisions of subdivision (e) shall not apply to equipment which, if covered,

would present unavoidable explosion or fire hazards, as approved in writing by

the Executive Officer.

2. The provisions of paragraph (e)(1) shall not apply to process drains while

receiving petroleum liquids and/or VOC containing liquids.

3. The provisions of paragraph (e)(1) and subparagraph (e)(2)(B) shall not apply to

components which the facility operator has detected and recorded to be in

violation or to emit excess emissions, prior to District discovery and which is

repaired and reinspected pursuant to paragraph (f)(3). This exemption is limited

to the period of time between recording and reinspection.

4. The provisions of paragraph (e)(6) and subparagraph (f)(1)(C) shall not apply to

natural gas handling facilities which are primarily operated to receive and inject

natural gas into the ground for underground storage and subsequent processing

and distribution with at least 80 percent methane (by volume), and of pipeline

quality, such as the gas sold or distributed by any utility company regulated by

the California Public Untilities Commission, provided that:

(A) None of the wastewater separators, DSCs, closed vent systems and APC

devices at the facility emit VOC emissions greater than 500 ppm as measured

pursuant to paragraph (h)(2) at any time, and

(B) The facility operator requests this exemption and provides inspection and

monitoring records for the most recent two years, which demonstrates

compliance with subparagraph (i)(4)(A), for the most recent two years, and the

request is approved in writing by the Executive Officer.

This approval and exemption shall automatically expire should facility operator’s

subsequent inspection records or District inspection show that the facility does

not comply with the requirements of subpara-graph (i)(4)(A). If the exemption is

lost due to non-compliance with subparagraph (i)(4)(A), the facility may reapply

for an exemption pursuant to subparagraph (i)(4)(B)

5. All the provisions of this rule shall not apply to the following:

(A) Components which present a safety hazard for inspection as documented

and established in a previous safety manual or policy, or with the prior written

approval of the Executive Officer except that these components shall be

monitored for excess emissions when it is safe to do so. Upon detection, the

excess emission shall be corrected as soon as the repairs or replacement can be

carried out safely.

(B) Wastewater separator pressure-vacuum valves when open, due to a vacuum

produced within the wastewater system.

(C) Spill containments for tanks.

(D) Open pipe channels designed for spill containment.

(E) Tanks subject to Rule 463.

(F) Valves, fittings, pumps, compressors, pressure relief devices, diaphragms,

hatches, site-glasses, and meters which are subject to or exempt from the

requirements of Rule 1173.

(G) Equipment, including catch basins, that exclusively receive, hold, or

discharge rainwater, stormwater runoff, or non-contact water.
C-11

(H) Well cellars used in emergencies at oil production fields, if clean-up

procedures are implemented within 24 hours after each emergency occurrence

and completed within ten (10) calendar days.

(I) Sampling junction boxes of the wastewater system prior to discharge into the

municipal sewer lines and which are designated as the legal sample point on the

facility’s industrial wastewater permit.

(J) Wastewater system(s), if the VOC content of each liquid stream entering each

sump and/or wastewater separator does not exceed at all times 5 mg per liter, as

determined by U.S. EPA Test Method 8240 or any other method demonstrated

by the applicant to be equivalent and approved in writing by the Executive

Officers of the District, the CARB, and the Regional Administrator of the U.S.-

EPA, Region IX, or their designees. Samples of the liquid stream shall be

collected from each inlet to the sump and/or wastewater separator. A safe

sampling site or sampling port to meet the requirements of this subparagraph

shall be installed upon request of the Executive Officer. The sampling site or port

shall be installed within two weeks after request by the Executive Officer or by

any other date as approved by the Executive Officer.

(K) Biological wastewater treatment units and their downstream equipment in a

secondary treatment system that is installed and operated to meet the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge requirements if the

VOC content of each liquid stream entering the secondary treatment system

does not exceed at all times 5 mg per liter, as determined by U.S. EPA Test

Method 8240 or any other method demonstrated by the applicant to be

equivalent and approved in writing by the Executive Officers of the District, the

CARB, and the Regional Administrator of the U.S. EPA, Region IX, or their

designees. Samples of the liquid stream shall be collected from each inlet to the

sump and/or wastewater separator. A safe sampling site or sampling port to meet

the requirements of this subparagraph shall be installed upon request of the

Executive Officer. The sampling site or port shall be installed within two weeks

after request by the Executive Officer or by any other date as approved by the

Executive Officer.

(L) Sanitary sewers and sanitary sewer systems not processing wastewater.
C-12

ATTACHMENT A

District Grab Sample Method

The grab sample procedure and method of analysis shall be according to the following:

1. Sampling Apparatus

The sampling system shall consist of at a minimum:

a. A 3 liter volume type 316 stainless steel tank.

b. A valve for leak tight shut off.

c. Two vacuum gauges which can measure 0 inch Hg to 30 inches of Hg.

d. A glass rotameter which can accurately measure a flowrate of 1 liter per

minute and larger.

e. A one-eighth inch diameter Teflon connector.

f. An inlet probe, and metallic fittings.

The dead space volume in the sample line shall be kept to a minimum. All

metallic components including the gauges shall be constructed of stainless steel.

A type 304 stainless steel tank may be allowed provided there are no acids in the

sample. Refer to Figure 1 for a schematic diagram of the sampling apparatus.

The glass rotameter shall be calibrated once every three months.

2. Sample Tank Evacuation and Leak Check

The evacuation and leak check of the sample tank shall be performed according

to the corresponding section of U.S. EPA Method 25.

3. Leak Check the Sampling Line

3.1. The sampling line shall be leak checked at the site before and after sampling

using the following procedure:

a. Cap the inlet probe.

b. Open the shut off valve slowly and briefly to allow 1 inch of Hg of vacuum in

the line.

c. Close the valve immediately.

d. The sampling line is leak free if there is no change in vacuum for one minute.

3.2. As an alternative, the sampling line may be leak checked before and after

sampling using the following procedure:

a. Insert one end of a vacuum gauge at the inlet probe.

b. Cap or seal the other end of the vacuum gauge attached to the probe.

c. Follow procedures 3.1.b. through 3.1.d.

4. Sampling

a. Purge the sample line.

b. Record the vacuum prior to sampling.

c. Use the section on “Individual Source Surveys” of U.S. EPA Reference Method

21 to take samples with the inlet probe of the sampling apparatus.

d. The rotameter shall be level to the horizon.

e. Open the shut off valve slowly.

f. Adjust the rotameter to a constant 1 liter per minute flowrate. Maintain this

constant flowrate throughout sampling.

g. Close the shut off valve when the vacuum has dropped to between 5-10

inches of Hg.

h. Record the vacuum after sampling is completed.

5. Analysis of Sampling
C-13

The sample shall be analyzed according to the applicable analytical gaseous

sections of U.S. EPA Method 25, or District Test Method 25.1.

Schematic Diagram of Sampling Apparatus

U.S. EPA Method 25 / District Test Method 25.1

Vacuum Gauges

Stainless Steel Canister

Shut-Off Valve

Glass Rotameter

Teflon

Stainless Steel Probe
Appendix D

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Rule 4625

(Wastewater Separators)
D-1

SJUAPCD RULE 4625 WASTEWATER SEPARATORS

LAST REVISED 12/17/92

RULE 4625 - WASTEWATER SEPARATORS

(Adopted April 11, 1991, Amended December 17, 1992)

1.0 Purpose

The purpose of this rule is to limit VOC emissions from wastewater separators by

requiring a vapor loss control device.

2.0 Applicability

This rule applies to wastewater separators as defined in this rule. The requirements of

this rule are not intended to apply to the separation of crude oil and water prior to

custody transfer.

3.0 Definitions

3.1 Air flotation unit: equipment used to remove suspended matter, both oil and

solid, from water by dissolving air under pressure and then releasing the air at

atmospheric pressure in a tank or basin.

3.2 Wastewater Separator: any device or piece of equipment that is used to remove

oil and associated chemicals from water, or any device, such as a flocculation tank,

clarifier, etc. that removes petroleum-derived compounds from wastewater.

3.3 Wastewater Separator Forbay: that section of a gravity-type wastewater

separator which receives the untreated, oil-water waste from the preseparator flume;

and acts as a header which distributes the influent to the separator channels.

4.0 Exemptions

4.1 This rule shall not apply to any wastewater separator for which:

where:

A = the area to be covered in square feet

V = the oil recovery rate in gallons/day on a annual basis
D-2

f = the estimated fractional volume loss of oil and is computed as:

 = -.0663 + .000319 x (annual mean ambient temperature oF)

 - [.000286 x (10% true boiling point, oF)]

 + [.00215 x (annual average influent temperature oF)]

4.2 Air Flotation Units

4.3 For existing facilities, if an incineration device is added or modified for the

sole purpose of complying with the requirements of this rule, such a device shall

be exempt from the Best Available Control Technology and the Offset

requirements of Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review Rule).

5.0 Requirements

5.1 A person shall not use any compartment of any vessel or device operated for the

recovery of oil or tar from effluent water, from any equipment which processes,

refines, stores or handles petroleum or coal tar products unless such compartments

are equipped with one of the following vapor loss control devices, except when

gauging or sampling is taking place:

5.1.1 A solid cover with all openings sealed and totally enclosing the liquid

contents of the compartment, except for such breathing vents as are

structurally necessary; or

5.1.2 A floating pontoon or double-deck type cover, equipped with closure

seals that have no holes or tears, installed and maintained so that gaps

between the compartment wall and seal shall not exceed one-eighth (1/8)

inch for an accumulative length of 97 percent of the perimeter of the tank, and

shall not exceed one-half (1/2) inch for an accumulative length of the

remaining three (3) percent of the perimeter of the tank. No gap between the

compartment wall and the seal shall exceed one-half (1/2) inch; or

5.1.3 A vapor recovery system with a combined collection and control

efficiency of at least 90 percent by weight.

5.2 Any gauging and sampling device in the compartment cover shall be

equipped with a cover or lid. The cover shall be in a closed position at all times,

except when the device is in actual use.

5.3 All wastewater separator forbays shall be covered.

5.4 Skimmed oil or tar removed from wastewater separating devices shall be

either charged to process units with feed or transferred to a container with a
D-3

control system with at least 90 percent control efficiency by weight. A control

device must be under District permit.

6.0 Administrative Requirements

6.1 Test Methods

6.1.1 Efficiency of VOC control device shall be determined by U.S. EPA Test

Method 25 and analysis of halogenated exempt compounds shall be by ARB

Method 422.

6.1.2 Analysis of halogenated exempt compounds shall be by ARB Method

432.

6.1.3 Where add-on control equipment is utilized, collection efficiency shall be

determined by the U.S. EPA document "Model Regulatory Language for

Capture Efficiency Testing", August 3, 1990.

7.0. Compliance Schedule

7.1 The owner or operator of any existing wastewater separator, not previously

subject to the requirements of this rule, which requires modification to comply with

this rule must meet the following compliance schedule:

7.1.1 Submit applications for Authority to Construct by January 1, 1992.

7.1.2 Complete on site construction and achieve final compliance by July 1,

1993.
Appendix E

Summary of Refinery Specific Site Visit Information
E-1

Overview of Chevron Oil Refinery

(Richmond) Wastewater System
E-2

Overview of Chevron Oil Refinery (Richmond) Wastewater System

• Introduction

The Chevron Oil Refinery (Plant #A0010) in Richmond, CA occupies an

approximately 2,500 acre site in Richmond, California. This refinery has a typical

daily throughput of 225,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) of crude oil, primarily

from the Alaskan North Slope. Crude oil is refined at the facility to produce

gasoline, marine fuel oil, jet fuel, diesel, home and industrial fuels,

propylene/polymer base stocks and 14,000 barrels of lube oils. In addition, Plant

#A0010 also produces 350 tons of sulfur daily as a by-product of the on-site

processes. As part of the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts' (the

District) 2001 Clean Air Plan, the District, in cooperation with the California Air

Resources Board (ARB) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(U.S. EPA), is examining process wastewater systems for each of the Bay Area

refineries. This effort is directed at determining whether there are significant

potential emission reductions from the control of any remaining uncontrolled

components of the process wastewater systems, or through other measures.

Most components of refinery wastewater systems are already controlled through

compliance with District Regulation 8, Rule 8 (8-8), District New Source Review

requirements, and U.S. EPA's National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste

Operations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF). As part of this project, a two day site

visit (4/10/02 and 4/11/02) was conducted at Plant #A0010 to assess the

availability of information related to the process wastewater system, and to

review the on-site collection and treatment of water management processes

which may have Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) emissions impacts.

Site History Plant #A0010 has been located in Richmond since the beginning of

the 20th Century. Initially established in 1901. The Richmond site was ideal

because of its natural deepwater port. Initially the facility engaged in the

production of kerosene, tar and fuel oil. This production occurred in large

horizontal batteries located in what is now known as the "south yard" area of the

refinery. This is the oldest area of the facility and with the exception of tank

storage, blending and shipping areas, it has for the most part been

decommissioned. In the 1920's the refining capacity of the facility was expanded

to include gasoline production for the expanding automobile markets. During the

war years of the 1940’s that the initial elements of today’s modern refinery

processes began to take shape. The early development of distillation process

and thermolytic cracking meant replacement of horizontal batteries in the south

yard area of the refinery with four modern distillate column crude units, and the

addition of a number of steam plants. This greatly increased the gasoline

production capacity of the site. The 1950’s saw the construction of the fluid

catalytic (cat.) cracker and related process units. While the majority of these

were retrofitted in the mid-199O’s to accommodate State-mandated fuels

programs, a number of these units are still functioning in the "central yard." The

major addition to the site in the 1960’s was the construction of the "ISOMAX"

complex in the "north yard" area. This unit consists of a number of hydro-
E-3

processing units, a catalytic hydrogen plant and solvent de-asphalting unit that

was modified in the early 1990’s. Increased demand for low sulfur fuels in the

1970’s drove the need to construct the Low Sulfur Fuel Oils (LSFO) complex.

The LSFO project consisted of a new crude unit in addition to jet and gasoline

hydro-treaters, sulfur plants and a Rheniformer. In the 1980’s, Plant #A0010

further expanded the ISOMAX complex by approximately 20% with a modernized

lube oil production facility. The lube oil facility, RLOP, is currently in operation

manufacturing high grade base oil products, however, part of the facility, which

received waxy feed from a number of different operations, was shutdown in

1999. The final iteration of the current construction occurred in the mid 1990’s

with imposition of California clean fuels requirements for gasoline. This

necessitated the modernization of the fluid catalytic cracking unit (FCCU) in the

north yard area of the refinery. This construction also included building a new

alkylation plant, TAME and MTBE plant.

On-site Waste Water Treatment At Plant #A0010, the process wastewater

treatment system is segregated into three collection areas, along the lines of the

facility’s own nominal division system, north yard, central yard and south yard.

Each of these denominations accepts flows from the process units in their area

and routes them via three separate oil water separators to the 165 million-gallon

biological treatment unit. Temperatures at each of the separators are estimated

at approximately 26.7 0C (80 0F) year round while temperatures in the bioreactor

vary from 26.7 0C (80 0F) in the aggressive treatment area to between 15.6 0C

(60 0F) and 18.3 0C (65 0F) in the settling basin area. The Aggressive Biological

Treatment Unit (ABTU) has approximately 900 subsurface air aerators operated

by two compressors that deliver approximately 17,000 CFM of air to the biomass. From the bioreactor treatment segment, there are two options for effluent

treatment. Effluent can either be routed directly to the deepwater outfall point

(DWOP) sump for discharge to the bay via the granular activated carbon (GAC)

unit or a portion may be routed through the three tier constructed wetlands for

secondary polishing and selenium removal. Effluent from the wetlands rejoins

the main waste water stream at the DWOP sump and these commingled streams

are discharged via the GAC unit to a 36" diffuser outfall at an average depth of

30-50 feet into San Pablo Bay, approximately 2000 feet offshore to the north of

Point San Pablo. North Yard Collection System The North Yard collection

system is responsible for the conveyance of process water effluent from the

catalytic cracking and hydroprocessing areas. This effluent consists specifically

of outfall from the following: Alkylation plants, polypropylene unit, sulfur recovery

unit, stripped sour water, and a small amount of ground water, MTBE plant, FCC

plant, TAME plant, ISOMAX plant and the Richmond Lube Oil Plant (RLOP).

Flows from these process collect into three main inputs to an oil water separator

(13 Separator). These inputs are the 27" SRU line which flows at 190 gallons per

minute (gpm) from the decommissioned alkylation plant, and operating sulfur

recovery units, the 36" FCC line which flows at 765 gpm from the FCC and

polypropylene units and the 60" Hydro line which flows at 845 gpm from the

ISOMAX and RLOP plants. At 13 Separator, these flows are commingled in an
E-4

underground two-cell separator system. Solids are settled out by gravity and the

effluent is piped via 60" line to the Bioreactor. The temperature at 13 separator is

estimated at 26.7 0C (80 0F). This separator is covered and complies with

existing regulation for VOC fugitive emissions control and design. It has three

pressure ventilation (PV) valves, a debris removal system and an oil removal

system. The outflow from 13 separator is estimated at 1,870 gpm or 2.6 million

gallons per day (mgd) and comprises approximately 50% of the effluent

produced at the facility. Central Yard Collection System This system routes

process flows primarily from the low sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) complex and its

associated process units to an oil water separator (2A separator). The effluent

consists specifically of outfall from the following: hydrotreating plants, crude

desalter plant, rheniformer plants, DEBRU unit and crude process units. Flows

are routed via three main trunk lines to 2A separator. However, unlike at the 13

Separator, in this case the three streams are combined prior to entering the 2A

Separator. Flows are input to this point by the 48" D&R North line at 35 gpm from

the DHT unit, from the 12" LSFO line at 71 gpm from LSFO rheniformers and cat

crackers, and the 18" Foundation Street line at 793 gpm from LSFO catalytic

cracker process. The total flow to 2A separator is estimated at approximately

1,160 gpm. 2A separator consists of a two-cell oil water separator supplied by

two 4.3 million gallon per day (MGD) pumps. This separator is above ground

and has both debris removal and oil recycling facilities as well as standard gravity

solids settlement. The separator is completely covered and is only opened twice

daily for approximately 1 hour at an approximately 2’X2’ gasketed area to remove

gross debris. The separator is covered as required, and is equipped with three

PV (pressure-vacuum) valves. This unit also has the capability to accept vacuum

truck input. This unit may also accept storm waters from a co-located sump

associated with the 50-100 foot storm water impoundment area. The

temperature at 2A separator is estimated at 26.7 0C (80 0F) and the outflow is

estimated at 1,160 gpm or 1.6 million gallons per day (mgd). South Yard

Collection System This collection system is by far the most complicated at the

facility and routes process flows from tank areas, the research center, marketing

and distribution operations and miscellaneous operations to an oil water

separator (1A separator) via a diversion box. The effluent consists specifically of

wastewater from the following: lube tanks, general tank storage areas, the

blending area, stormwater retention areas, Altamont loading racks and boiler

blow down. These flows are routed via five main lines to a flow splitter (five cell

diversion box) and lifted via four pumps into the 1A separator. These lines are as

follows: a 36" main line that inputs boiler blow down and tank run off at 30 gpm, a

48" center line which inputs tank and blending area effluent at 415 gpm, a 48"

line that runs along Pipe Street and that routes process sewer water from the

main tank field (stormwater retention areas) at 115 gpm, a 60" line that runs

along Division Street and inputs various effluents and tank draw effluents at 385

gpm and finally, the 36" CALOL line which inputs various tank effluents at 337

gpm. Following the diversion box these flows are joined by three additional

trunk lines prior to the flow splitter at 1A separator. These lines are as follows: a

38" sewer line from the south yard, a 12" line that runs along Channel Street and
E-5

a 24" line from the PETROLITE area of the south yard at 85 to 225 gpm. From

each portion of the flow splitter effluent can be pumped via four 4.3 mgd pumps

to the above ground oil water separator. 1A separator is a four cell "in train"

separator similar to 2A separator. Both have debris removal and oil recycling

facilities as well as standard gravity solids settlement. The separator is

completely covered and is only opened twice daily for approximately 1 hour at an

approximately 2’X2’ gasketed area to remove gross debris. The separator is

covered as required by current regulations and is equipped with three PV valves.

This unit also has the capability to accept vacuum truck input. The temperature at

1A separator is estimated at 26.7 0C (80 0F) and the outflow is estimated at 1,435

gpm or 2.0 million gallons per day (mgd). Aggressive Biological Treatment Unit

and Bioreactor Effluent from each of the three on-site effluent collection systems

is hard piped to a single junction point and then this commingled flow is sent via

a 60" line to the Aggressive Biological Treatment Unit and bioreactor. The

bioreactor consists of a 165 million-gallon pond varying in depth to between 24

and 26 feet. This pond has four distinct regions further divided by a curtain wall

into the Aggressive Biological Treatment Unit (ABTU) and the settling basin. It is

estimated that the total retention time of the bioreactor ranges from as low as 3 –

7 days to a high of 2–3 weeks depending on operational conditions and weather

conditions. The Aggressive Biological Treatment Unit contains approximately 85

millions gallons of effluent that is aerated by 900 subsurface aerators. These

aerators receive airflow from two compressors that produce between 17,000 to a

maximum 23,000 CFM. Temperature for this area is estimated to be constant at

26.7 0C (80 0F). The settling basin portion of the bioreactor is designed to polish

the effluent that flows from the Aggressive Biological Treatment Unit at the end of

the curtain wall where the 2nd and 3rd quadrants meet. This area lets the

biomass settle out of the effluent. This area contains approximately 80 millions

gallons of effluent and varies in temperature between 15.6 0C (60 0F) to 18.3 0C

(65 0F) seasonally. As this area precipitates solids from the aggressive

biotreatment area, dredging operations must be conducted on an as-needed

periodic basis. The finished effluent from this activity, is estimated at an annual

average flow of 6.8 mgd and is primarily directed to the DWOP sump or may be

directed to the Water Enhancement Wetlands Treatment Area for further

polishing prior to carbon treatment (GAC), and discharge to San Pablo Bay.

Wetlands Plant #A0010’s Water Enhancement Wetland project (an explicit

treatment option) is an experimental natural treatment and polishing system

primarily for solids and metals removal. This system consists of three passes

containing approximately 30 million gallons of effluent. This effluent is supplied

from the bioreactor at approximately 1.5 MGD, however, this flow may be

increased depending on seasonal conditions and Department of Fish and Game

requirements. The flow is supplied to the first pass via a hardpipe system directly

from bioreactor settling area. The majority of growth in the passes consists of

cattails and bulrushes that remain unharvested to assist in biotreatment. The

system is claimed to effect up to a 60% reduction of selenium from bioreactor

effluent. Effluent from the wetlands is pumped to the DWOP sump to rejoin

outfall from the Bioreactor. DWOP Sump and GAC Unit Effluent from the
E-6

bioreactor and wetlands are commingled at the DWOP sump before being

pumped to the Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) facility for final treatment. This

sump is 8’ deep and is designed to remove any gross debris and biomaterial The

GAC facility is the final step of onsite treatment for Plant #A0010’s effluent. It

consists of 24 GAC units on 12 skids and serves to remove turbidity,

hydrocarbons, and aquatic toxicity from the final effluent. From here the final

effluent is pumped to the bay via a 36" line to a diffuser at an average depth of

30-50 feet into San Pablo Bay, approximately 2000 feet offshore to the north of

Point San Pablo.

Oil/Water Separator Solids In addition to the effluent treatment onsite, solids from

both the bioreactor and the three onsite separators are treated prior to disposal.

Solids that precipitate out of the effluent in each of the three API oil-water

separators are removed periodically by vacuum truck. This material is

transported to the hazardous waste annex on-site and dewatered using two

centrifuges. Vapors from this process are controlled via a caustic solution wet

scrubber, vapor chiller, and carbon bed. Wastewater from this process is

disposed via an open sump to the head works for 1A separator. This effluent is

stated to be at ambient temperature. As previously stated solids from the

bioreactor are dredged from the settling area periodically. It is assumed that this

material is de-watered and than landfilled after meeting all hazardous waste

regulatory specifications. This matter is currently undergoing further

investigation.

Storm Water Due to the nature and size of this site there are numerous

discharge points and impoundment areas; these were identified by Chevron and

in their Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES (RWQCB) permit.

Permitted (SF-RWQCB Order 01-067) stormwater discharge can occur in many

instances either directly to the waters of SF/San Pablo Bay(s), and may be

routed through the refinery Effluent Treatment System at the facilities discretion,

and dependent upon analytical qualitative factors. Prior to any direct discharge

of impound basins to SF Bay, or San Pablo Bay, the NPDES permit specifies

sampling programs and qualitative permit limits. Sheetflow runoff areas have

specific sampling plans, but due to the very nature of this discharge, its flow to

the Bay(s) is monitored, but not controlled. In addition to the stormwater water

collected by the on-site wastewater treatment system, some stormwater runoff

from the ChevronTexaco Energy Research and Technology Center is also

processed. The final discharge of this system is through a deepwater outfall at an

average depth of 30-50 feet into San Pablo Bay, approximately 2000 feet

offshore to the north of Point San Pablo. This discharge point is referred to as E001. Stormwater runoff from an area of approximately 4 acres located in a former

Point Orient Tankfield discharges into San Francisco Bay at outfall location E005. Runoff from an area of approximately 48 acres located in a former Point

Orient Tankfield area, the 12-Basin area (approximately 3 acres) and from the

Horse Pasture area (approximately 17 acres) discharges into San Francisco Bay

at outfall location E-006. In addition, stormwater runoff from the Horse Pasture
E-7

(approximately 17 acres) located in a former Point Orient Tankfield area

discharges into San Francisco Bay at outfall location E-007. Stormwater runoff

may commingled with incidental amounts of steam condensate, groundwater

seepage, and water from the fire protection systems from the 496 acres in and

around the Main Tankfield, Distillation and Reforming facilities, Main and South

Yard areas, rail car loading areas, Asphalt Plant, and Cogeneration Facility may

discharge into San Pablo Bay at outfall location E-008, or may be transferred to

the North Yard Impound Basin for discharge as part of the North Yard Impound

Basin discharge operation. Runoff commingled with steam condensate and water

from the fire protection systems that originates from an area of approximately 26

acres within the Quarry Tankfield may discharge into San Francisco Bay at

outfall location E-009. Sheetflow stormwater runoff from an area of

approximately 6 acres which is a portion of the Reclamation Yard area

discharges into Wildcat Creek via the Gertrude Street Ditch, which then drains to

Castro Creek and San Pablo Bay. The discharge of Waste 010 is monitored at

outfall E-010. Stormwater runoff commingled with groundwater (both seepage

and extracted from various subsurface hydraulic containment systems), steam

condensate, and potable water used in the facility’s fire protection systems and

facility washdown originates from an area of approximately 28.4 acres from areas

within the Chevron Chemical Company LLC Hensley Street facility is collected in

the Castro Acres surge pond (located along the east side of Castro Street) prior

to being pumped into sections of Chevron Chemical Company LLC’s Integrated

Wastewater Pond System (IWPS) or it can be pumped directly to the IWPS,

located at the Castro Street facility. The Castro Acres surge pond is not

permitted to discharge to surface waters under typical rainfall conditions as it

may contain trace contaminants. Typically, this water is discharged to the IWPS,

which provides necessary surge capacity before discharge to the City of

Richmond sanitary sewer system (POTW). However, during periods of high

intensity rainfall (in excess of a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event), this pond may

discharge into Castro Creek via a drainage ditch on the east side of Castro

Street, identified as Outfall E-011. Stormwater runoff commingled with

groundwater (both seepage and extracted from various subsurface hydraulic

containment systems), steam condensate, and potable water used in the facility’s

fire protection systems and for facility washdown originates from an area of

approximately 19 acres within the Chevron Chemical Company LLC’s Castro

Street facility which was formerly used to manufacture fertilizer. This runoff is

collected in evaporation ponds located along the west side of Castro Street. This

runoff, which collects in the fertilizer ponds, is not permitted to discharge to

surface waters under typical rainfall conditions as it may contain trace

contaminants. Typically, it is discharged to the fertilizer ponds, which provide

necessary surge capacity before discharge to the City of Richmond POTW.

However, during periods of high intensity rainfall (in excess of a 25-year, 24-hour

rainfall event), Waste 012 may be discharged into Castro Creek at an outfall

identified as E-012. Runoff from direct rainfall onto sections of Chevron Chemical

Company LLC’s IWPS, an area of approximately 81 acres of synthetically lined

surface impoundments, is accumulated. Depending on annual precipitation,
E-8

various sections of the IWPS receive water from other on-site surface

impoundments. When this occurs, these sections are no longer considered as

solely containing storm water runoff and the accumulated water is discharged to

the City of Richmond’s POTW. This area also receives rainfall runoff from an

adjacent 4 acre capped Class II waste management unit (Soil Management Unit

No.1) and may be discharged into Castro Creek, at a point approximately 1000

feet upstream of its confluence with Wildcat Creek at an outfall identified as E013. Stormwater runoff from an area of approximately 4 acres in a former

tankfield area of the Office Hill Tankfield discharges to San Pablo Bay via the

City of Richmond’s stormwater management system. This system routes

stormwater from storm sewers to the Castro Street Pump Station. The Pump

Station pumps water to Chevron’s 38-Foot Channel, which discharges into

Castro Creek. Stormwater runoff from an area of approximately 5 acres in a

former tankfield area of the Office Hill Tankfield discharges to San Pablo Bay via

the City of Richmond’s stormwater management system. This system routes

water from storm-sewers to the Castro Street Pump Station. The Pump Station

pumps water to Chevron’s 38-Foot Channel, which discharges into Castro

Creek. Stormwater runoff from an area of approximately 7 acres in a former

tankfield area of the Office Hill Tankfield may discharge into San Francisco Bay.

Stormwater runoff commingled with steam condensate and water from the fire

protection systems from approximately 20 acres in the SP Hill Tankfield may

discharge into San Francisco Bay or be returned to the process water system.

Stormwater runoff commingled with steam condensate and water from the fire

protection systems from approximately 29 acres in the Quarry Tankfield may

discharge to San Francisco Bay or be returned to the process water system.

Stormwater runoff from an area of approximately 3 acres in the former Point

Orient Tankfield discharges to San Francisco Bay. This runoff may also be

transferred and discharged at E-006. Runoff from the City of Richmond’s

stormwater management system drains an area of approximately 260 acres

(encompassing City owned property on the Castro Street Roadway, North

Richmond, and Point Richmond suburban areas) and routes water from City of

Richmond storm sewers to the Castro Street Pump Station. The Pump Station

pumps water to Chevron’s 38-Foot Channel, which discharges into Castro Creek,

which flows to San Pablo Bay. Stormwater sheetflow runoff from a capped waste

management unit area of approximately 5 acres is discharged to Castro Creek.

Castro Creek flows into San Pablo Bay. Stormwater sheetflow runoff from a

capped waste management unit area of approximately 3 acres is routed to the

Gertrude Street ditch that drains to Wildcat Creek. Wildcat Creek flows to Castro

Creek then to San Pablo Bay. Stormwater sheetflow runoff from a capped waste

management unit area of approximately 41 acres discharges to Castro Creek,

which flows to San Pablo Bay. The North Yard Impound Basin (formerly 1st Pass

#1 Oxidation Pond) discharge consists of stormwater commingled with steam

condensate, groundwater seepage, and water from fire protection systems. The

North Yard Impound Basin is a remediated containment basin formerly used in

wastewater treatment. Runoff originates from an area of approximately 341

acres from areas within the: Poleyard and Alkane Tankfields and adjacent hill
E-9

sides; LPG and Ammonia Storage Facilities; Cracking and Hydroprocessing

facilities; Petrochemical facilities; FCC, RLOP, Isomax, MTBE/TAME cooling

water towers; Hydrogen Plant; former Alkane and HF Plant areas; Sulfur

Recovery Unit and sulfur sales facilities; and Hydropits Cap. The North Yard

Impound Basin discharges may contain transferred stormwater W-008, and may

discharge to Castro Creek or may be processed through the Refinery effluent

treatment system. Castro Creek flows into San Pablo Bay. Stormwater sheetflow

runoff from a capped waste management unit area of approximately 7 acres of

the Parr-Richmond Site discharges to Wildcat Creek and Gertrude Street ditch

(which drains to Wildcat Creek). Wildcat Creek drains to Castro Creek, which

flows to San Pablo Bay. 

Drains and Junction Boxes During the course of the site visit to Plant #A0010, a

number of different drain formations were observed in the process areas. The

formations observed were generally consistent with the phases of construction at

the site. Drains in the LSFO area with the more modern construction (1990’s

cat. crackers and rheniformers) had P-trap water seal drains and Chevron boxtype water seal drains. The older areas of construction such as 1970’s

rheniformer #5 tended to have a mixture of P-trap water seal drains, Chevron

box-type water seal drains and what appeared to be unsealed drains. These

apparently unsealed drains were for the most part associated with pump stands

and were in the minority of the drains observed. This was also the case at

1950’s rheniformer #4, where the same mixture of sealed drains and occurrence

of apparently unsealed drains repeated itself. This was again the case at the #4

crude unit. Junction boxes observed in this area were linked to vent pipes that

opened in most cases approximately 20 to 30 feet above the ground surface

exceeding current BAAQMD minimum standards. In other areas of Plant

#A0010 this scenario replayed itself. Newer construction such as the "new

alkylation plant" and FCC units were observed to have P-trap water seal drains

and Chevron box-type water seal drains. In the older areas of the facility such as

the "old alkylation plant" and polypropylene unit apparently uncontrolled drains

were located on the outer "older" edges of the construction. Investigation is

currently being conducted into the format of the pump stand drains and other

drains from the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1970’s to confirm their configuration. The site

visit also indicated that the older 1940’s drains at the site had, for the most part,

been blinded. Inspection of the ISOMAX process area revealed two sets of

distinct drain constructions corresponding to distinct phase of development at

that site. Both the north and south ISOMAX complexes were developed in the

1960’s with later construction in the 1990’s. Pump stand drains for the north and

south 1960’s construction appeared for the most part to be open and varied in

size from 2" to 4". Box seals were observed in a number of areas and junction

boxes were for the most part under water seals. Also, one area of open surface

drains was observed in the south ISOMAX complex. In the newer area only

three-inch drains were observed and all were covered with steel plates. Also, a

number of 1’ x1’ box seal drains were observed. Drains in the RLOP area date

from the mid to late 1980’s and it appears that this construction mirrored the
E-10

1960’s construction at the site. A number of what appear to be 4" open drains

were observed at pump stands within the complex and a number of 1’ x1’ box

seal drains were also observed. This complex also included some 6" drains that

also appeared to be open.
E-11

Overview of The ConocoPhillips San

Francisco Refinery (Rodeo) Wastewater

System
E-12

Overview of The ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery (RODEO) Wastewater

System

Introduction

The ConocoPhillips San Francisco Refinery (SFR) in Rodeo, CA operates two crude

distillation units and several separate downstream units to produce a variety of

petroleum products. These products include butane, various grades of gasoline, diesel

fuel, jet fuel, fuel oils, sulfur, and petroleum coke. The fuels produced are used for

numerous transportation applications, including automobiles, heavy trucks, ships, and

aircraft. The petroleum coke produced is sent offsite either as fuel or for further

processing at the Carbon Plant. The refinery processes several different types of

crudes. The crudes are delivered to the refinery by pipeline and tanker. Built in 1896,

Rodeo Refinery was the first major oil refinery in the Bay Area. The original site

occupied only 22 acres and processed 1,600 barrels of crude oil per day. Today, the

site occupies approximately 1,100 acres and employs about 470 people. The refinery is

located on approximately 320 acres of land adjacent to the Marine Terminal and is

bisected by San Pablo Avenue.

Major Products and Capacities

Refinery throughput data for crude, cracking/coking and reforming/alkylation processes

is approximately 73,000 barrels of per day. Crude oil and intermediate streams are

refined at the facility to produce gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. In addition, Plant #A0016

also produces petroleum coke and sulfur as a co-products.

As part of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s 2001 Clean Air Plan, the

District, in cooperation with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the United

States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), is examining the wastewater

systems for each of the Bay Area refineries to determine whether there are significant

potential emission reductions from control of any remaining uncontrolled components of

the wastewater systems, or through other measures. Most components of refinery

wastewater systems are already controlled through compliance with District Regulation

8, Rule 8 (8-8), District New Source Review requirements, and U.S. EPA's National

Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF).

As part of this project a two day site visit (5/1/02 and 5/2/02) was conducted at Plant

#A0016 to assess the availability of information related to the waste water system and

to review the on-site collection and treatment of water which may have Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) emissions impacts.

Refinery Areas

At Plant #A0016, process water trunk lines originate in four geographic areas that flow

through separate trunk lines to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. These areas may be

conveniently referred to as “West Refinery” “East Refinery/Tormey Hill”, “Lower Tank

Farm”, and “Sulfur/MP-30/Seasonal Storage”. Each area includes units of varying

construction dates.
E-13

West Refinery

The oldest area is the West Refinery located west of San Pablo Avenue. Existing

construction in this area ranges from 1940 to 1994. This area includes a Marine

Terminal, butane storage, railcar loading, crude oil and product storage, hydrogen plant

Unit 110, a Cogeneration steam/power plant, shop areas, warehouse, laboratory, and

administration buildings. This area also has a number of decommissioned units

including Unit 32 (wax processing), Unit 67 (crude processing), Unit 105 (lubrication oil

and wax processing).

The decommissioned areas typically have open drain channels with below-grade sumps

covered by grates or platforms and no underground wastewater structures. The

decommissioned areas appear to be abandoned in place. 

The primary sources of wastewater from the West Refinery include:

• Stormwater runoff,

• Rainwater drained from tank blocks,

• Flow from decommissioned Unit 210 in the East Refinery/Tormey Hill area that

runs under San Pablo Avenue to the West Refinery area,

• A cogeneration steam/power plant,

• Groundwater remediation water, and

• Sewer discharge from buildings, e.g. lab, administration, warehouse, and shop.

Combined wastewater (e.g. stormwater runoff, process water, sanitary sewage, and

groundwater remediation) is discharged from the West Refinery area via a 48-inch

underground pipe. This drainage pipe connects to the main refinery wastewater

collection and storage system. All refinery wastewater is collected and pumped to tanks

130, 104, 105 prior to treatment.

All drains inspected (except for those installed in the hydrogen plant, Unit 110) in the

West Refinery area were open and typically varied in size from 3 to 4 inches. Refinery

drawings suggest that drains flow to water sealed junction boxes. Confirmation of

junction box design will occur during future visits.

Also, located in the West Refinery area is the inlet for a 42 million gallon per day (MGD)

saltwater single pass cooling system. This inlet is located just north of the Marine

Terminal causeway. Discharge of the single pass saltwater cooling occurs in two outfall

locations, E-001 and E-003. The E-001 outfall is at the southern boundary of the West

Refinery area near butane tank 302. The E-003 outfall is located approximately 700 feet

south of E-001.The Rodeo refinery is the only Bay Area refinery currently using single

pass saltwater cooling in refinery operations.

South of the West Refinery area is an area containing equipment salvage, parking, the

saltwater "safety basin" and the associated "safety basin" bypass channel. The safety

basin and channel are located in the southern tip of the refinery bounded by San Pablo

Avenue and the Union Pacific Railroad tracks. The open safety basin and bypass

channel are holding structures for single pass saltwater discharge that is regulated by a
E-14

National Pollution Discharge Elimination Permit (NPDES) permit issued by the San

Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The most recent refinery process construction at the West Refinery area is the

hydrogen production plant, Unit 110. This area appears to be the only major process

area in West Refinery Area equipped with water seal drains. These drains are equipped

with box type water seal inserts draining to below grade 3'x3' sumps. However, one of

these sumps appeared to be an open sump without a water seal. Other drains in active

refinery areas appear to be open units without water seals. These open drains connect

to a variety of sumps, junction boxes and manholes. Some of these sumps appear to be

open collection units without water seals.

East Refinery/Tormey Hill

East Refinery/Tormey Hill is located east of San Pablo Avenue. This area contains the

refinery’s major petroleum processing areas. Construction in this area ranges from 1940

to present. This area generates process wastewaters from product storage, product

shipping via pipeline, delayed coking, crude distillation, desalting, gas fractionation,

catalytic reforming, prefractionation, hydrogen production, hydrotreating, fractionation

and utility operations. This area also has a number of decommissioned units including

Unit 210 (dewaxing), Unit 212 (deoiling), and Unit 220 (Duo Sol). Surface runoff at the

decommissioned Duo Sol unit currently flows through a concrete structure that was

used historically to contain and pump out process liquids that could not be discharged to

directly the process sewer. Sources of wastewater in this area also include stormwater

runoff, domestic sewage, and drainage from tank blocks.

The decommissioned units typically have open drains connected to below-grade sumps

covered by grates. The decommissioned areas appear to be abandoned in place.

Product storage is located on the northeastern boundary of the East Refinery/Tormey

Hill area and east of Highway 80. Wastewater and stormwater drains in these areas are

open and connected to sumps or manholes. These sumps or manholes are in or

adjacent to the perimeter impoundment structures surrounding the product storage

tanks. Some of the sumps or manholes in this area appeared to be without water seals.

Manually operated valves regulate discharges from large tank impoundment areas.

Water draws and tank cleanout from product tanks discharge into open sumps

immediately adjacent to tanks. Pipeline shipping operations occur at Unit 80 , which is

located near San Pablo Avenue in the East Refinery/Tormey Hill area. Most of the

refinery's liquid product is distributed through this unit to northern California pipelines.

The unit has open 4" drains connected to below grade open sumps.

The coking unit (Unit 200), crude oil desalter (Unit 267), fuel gas recovery (Unit 233),

and butane fractionator (Unit 215) are located in the lower center portion of the East

Refinery/Tormey Hill area. Most if not all of the drains in these units were open and

connected to below grade sumps. Drain size ranged from 4” to 6". Some of the sumps

appear to be open and without water seals. Horizontal dimensions for sumps were

typically 3'x3'. The desalter 6" open drain is the location of the initial refinery NESHAP

sampling point for Benzene.
E-15

The coking unit uses the MOSC process (Mobil Oil Sludge Coking) and is the primary

destination for oily sludge from the API separator and residual oils left from refining

crude petroleum byproduct materials. These materials are converted to delayed or

“green” petroleum coke via the MOSC process. Discharge from the coking drums is

carried out via hydraulic cutting using oily water routed from the de-coking process.

Green coke and oily hydraulic cutting water discharges to a large open pit below the

coke unit. Oily cutting water is recycled to a storage tank adjacent to the coke unit.

Green coke is removed from the pit via clamshell and sold as a direct product or

shipped to the refinery Carbon Plant. The Carbon Plant is a petroleum coke calciner

that makes anode grade calcined coke from green coke. The Carbon Plant is located

approximately five miles from the main refinery. The Carbon Plant was not surveyed

during the May inspection due to time constraints.

Units 240 (prefractionation, hydrotreating, fractionation and hydrogen production), 244

(catalytic reforming) and 248 (aromatic saturation) are located in the southern portion of

the East Refinery/Tormey Hill area. These units were constructed during the 1970's.

Most if not all of the drains in these units were open and connected to below grade

sumps. Size of the drains range from 4” to 6". Some of the sumps appear to be open

and without water seals. Typical horizontal dimensions for sumps were 3'x3'.

Sulfur/MP-30/Seasonal Storage

The Sulfur/MP-30/Seasonal Storage area is adjacent to East Refinery/Tormey Hill. This

area includes Units 234, 236 and 238 (sulfur recovery), MP-30 consisting of Units 228

(isomerization), 229 (catalytic hydrotreating), 230 (distillation and olefin saturation), 231

(catalytic reforming), and Seasonal Storage (i.e. finished product storage) located east

of Interstate Highway 80. Primary design and construction of this area occurred from

1940 to 1970. The primary sources of wastewater in the Sulfur/MP-30/Seasonal

Storage area are:

• Stormwater runoff,

• Product storage,

• Seasonal Storage wastewater (connects to the Sulfur/MP-30area wastewater

system via an underground pipe below Interstate Highway 80),

• Stretford process sulfur removal,

• Incoming pipeline operations,

• Units 228, 229, 230 and 231.

This area is reported to be similar to all other refinery product storage areas. The

Seasonal Storage area was not inspected due to time constraints. Wastewater and

stormwater drains in the product storage areas inspected were typically 4" open drains

connected to sumps or manholes. These sumps or manholes are in or adjacent to the

perimeter impoundment structures surrounding the product storage tanks.

Refinery sulfur removal uses the Stretford process. The Stretford Process is a wet-type

desulfurization process where hydrogen sulfide is removed from gas streams and fine

particle sulfur is recovered. Drains in the sulfur units (units 234, 238, 236) were typically
E-16

4" open drains connected to open sumps. Concrete berms and paving in the sulfur units

appeared highly corroded most likely due to acidic properties associated with biological

breakdown of fine particle sulfur. Incoming pipeline operations and MP-30, were closed

due to process operations during the inspection. The area will be inspected in the

future. The MP-30 units (Units 228, 229, 230, 231), typically contained 4" open drains

connected to open sumps.

Lower Tank Farm

Interstate Highway 80 runs parallel to the eastern boundary of the Lower Tank Farm.

Sulfur/MP-30/Seasonal Storage forms the northern boundary and the refinery

wastewater treatment system is located to the southwest. This area includes product

storage, gasoline blending (Unit 76), and wastewater storage. The primary sources of

wastewater from the Lower Tank Farm are from:

• ""Stormwater runoff,

• ""Product storage

• ""Gasoline blending

• ""Raw materials receiving (Unit 40)

• ""Fire Training area

Product storage is located throughout the Lower Tank Farm area. Wastewater and

stormwater drains in these areas are typically 4" open drains connected to sumps or

manholes. These sumps or manholes are in or adjacent to the perimeter impoundment

structures surrounding the product storage tanks. The east main trunk line (a 42"

underground pipe) connects all refinery wastewater discharge and lies along the

western boundary of the Lower Tank Farm area. Primary design and construction of this

area occurred from 1950 to 1970. Current operations in this area include product

storage, tank water draws, tank cleanout, and wastewater storage, tanks 130, 104, and

105). Gasoline and mid-barrel blending at Unit 76 produces finished gasoline and

diesel fuels. Some additional retail gasoline product blending occurs off site.

On-Site Waste Water Treatment

Selenium treatment occurs on the western boundary of the Lower Tank Farm area. The

refinery segregates sour water from process units, strips out hydrogen sulfide, and hard

pipes this stripped sour water to the Selenium Removal Plant (SRP). This treatment unit

uses primary copper and secondary ferrous precipitation to remove selenium and

excess copper from stripped sour water. Precipitated selenium and copper containing

solids are dewatered in a filter press and disposed as hazardous waste. The filter press

system does not need to use vapor recovery. Treated effluent from the SRP is routed to

the main refinery wastewater storage and treated through the wastewater system.

The waste water collection system (Unit 100) at Plant #A0016 flows by gravity to dry

and wet weather sumps, from which it is pumped to the three-tank wastewater storage

system, equalization tanks 130, 104, 105. Total volume of tank storage is approximately

18 million gallons. During periods of extreme rainfall, if the equalization tanks are full,

wastewater is diverted to a surface impoundment, the “Primary Basin” (2.3 million

gallons capacity). The primary basin is permitted as a RCRA secondary containment
E-17

structure since it may contain hazardous petroleum constituents. If the Primary Basin

reaches capacity it will overflow into a second surface impoundment, the “Main Basin”

(7.2 million gallons capacity).

All onsite wastewaters (process, stormwater runoff and sanitary waste) are combined

for treatment at Unit 100. Wastewater from the equalization tanks is gravity fed to a

four-cell oil/water separator (API) at ambient temperature. The API does not use

screens to remove gross debris from the effluent stream since trash is removed at the

inlets to the dry and wet weather sumps. The API is completely enclosed. These cells

allow product from process waters to settle out via gravity. Oily surface waters and oily

solids are removed from the cells by top and bottom chain driven skimmers for oil

recovery or conversion to delayed petroleum coke via the MOSC process. From the

API cells, water flows under gravity into a four-cell Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) unit to

remove additional oil and suspended solids. This unit is also completely enclosed. Here

air bubbles are used to remove any suspended product from the effluent prior to PACT

treatment.

Biological treatment occurs in a Powdered Activated Carbon Treatment (PACT) unit

followed by clarification and sand filtration. The PACT treatment unit biologically

oxidizes organic materials with aggressive aeration and adsorbs toxics using powdered

activated carbon. Carbon is recycled from the PACT system and is regenerated using a

Wet Air Regeneration (WAR) unit. The WAR unit reactivates the carbon and oxidizes

biological growth. Makeup carbon is supplied from tankage adjacent to the PACT

system. Biosolids generated in the PACT unit are settled out in the clarifiers. Discharge

from the clarifiers is filtered through sand media, disinfected with chlorine, dechlorinated

with sodium bisulfite, and discharged to San Pablo Bay

Solid Waste

Off-site removal of solid waste from the wastewater treatment system at this facility

occurs primarily at the Selenium Reduction Plant. Solids separation of selenium filter

cake does not require vapor control. It is estimated that 250 tons of sludge (70 to 75%

moisture content) were removed for landfilling in 2001. All organic waste is destroyed

via WAR unit or transferred to the Coker.

Storm Water

As well as treating process wastewater, stormwater runoff from process and industrial

areas is routed through the on-site wastewater treatment plant prior to being discharged

to San Pablo Bay through a 6,000-foot, 18-inch diameter outfall pipe. The outfall,

referred to as E-002, terminates with a multi-port diffuser. Permitted discharges of

stormwater runoff flow to San Pablo Bay from the refinery’s Marine Terminal and

causeway. Stormwater runoff from these areas is estimated at 0.006 MGD.

Sumps, Junction Boxes and Drains

As part of this site visit, an extensive tour of the various operating units was conducted

at Plant #A0016 that incorporated construction from all phases of building. A range of

drain, sump and junction box designs were observed at the facility and these
E-18

components varied with construction date and location. However, most drains and

sumps were open without water seals.
E-19

Overview of Shell Oil Products US

(Martinez) Refinery Wastewater System
E-20

Overview of Shell Oil Products US, Martinez Refinery Wastewater System

Introduction

The Shell Oil Products US, Martinez Refinery (Plant #A0011) in Martinez, CA occupies

an approximately 850 acre site in Martinez, California. This refinery has an average

daily throughput of 155,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) of crude oil primarily from the

San Joaquin Valley area. This crude oil is refined at the facility to produce 83,000

barrels of gasoline, 16,000 barrels of marine fuel oil, 27,000 barrels of jet fuel, 4,000

barrels of lube oils, 17,000 barrels of diesel, 7,000 barrels of asphalt and 7 tons of

petroleum coke. In addition, Plant #A0011 also produces 150 to 175 tons of sulfur daily

as a by- product of the on-site processes. These production rates generally reflect

averages from the 2000-2001 time period.

As part of the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts' (the District) 2001 Clean Air

Plan, the District, in cooperation with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), is examining the

wastewater systems for each of the Bay Area refineries to determine whether there are

significant potential emission reductions from control of any remaining uncontrolled

components of the wastewater systems, or through other measures. Most components

of refinery wastewater systems are already controlled through compliance with District

Regulation 8, Rule 8 (8-8), District New Source Review requirements, and U.S. EPA's

National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart

FF).

As part of this project a two day site visit (3/26/02 and 3/28/02) was conducted at Plant

#A0011 to assess the availability of information related to the waste water system and

to review the on-site collection and treatment of water which may have Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) emissions impacts.

Site History

Plant #A0011 has been located in Martinez since early in the 20th Century. Initially

established in 1915 by the Royal Dutch Petroleum Company, the Martinez site was

ideal because of its natural deepwater port, potential for receiving crude oil via pipeline,

and available markets. Initially the facility engaged in the production of kerosene,

lubricating oil and asphalt. By the 1930's production of gasoline and various aviation

fuels were included. The western side of the current refinery (west of Shell Avenue) is

built on the initial site of the 1915 facility and is know as the "Heavy Oil Processing "

area. This site is currently used primarily for the processing and storage of lube oils,

fuel oils, asphalt, and other "heavy end" products. 

In the 1960's the refining capacity of the facility was expanded to include a new crude

unit, a hydrocracker, a catalytic cracker, an alkylation plant, a catalytic reformer, two

sulfur recovery plants, numerous hydrotreaters and a hydrogen plant. This increased

the facility's ability to convert San Joaquin crude into the gasoline needed for the

expanding California automobile markets. 
E-21

In 1982, the "Operations Central Area" was added to the refinery, again to optimize

production capability. The most notable addition was the Flexicoker, which produces

low BTU gas from coke for use as furnace fuel for the refinery. The project also

increased hydrogen and sulfur production at the site. The final phase of the current

construction was completed in the 1990's and added further hydrotreating capabilities,

another hydrogen plant and a delayed coker to the facility.

On-site Waste Water Treatment

To understand the structure of the wastewater treatment at Plant #A0011, one needs to

understand the phases of construction at the facility. Pre-1960's construction led to the

building of Effluent Treatment Plant One biotreater (ETP-1). ETP-1 remains the main

secondary treatment unit for wastewater created in the western side of the refinery. It is

a 4 million-gallon biotreatment pond with floating aerators. The typical operating

temperature is in the range of 32.2 oC (90oF) to 37.8 oC (100oF). Discharge from ETP-1

is hard piped to three dissolved air flotation clarifiers, then to a polishing pond, then to

selenium treatment, next to a polishing pond, next to carbon filtration, and finally

discharge via marine outfall adjacent to deepwater terminal. Overall the western side of

the refinery wastewater system has open drains feeding to the API separator. The

wastewater system immediately prior to the API and running to the dissolved nitrogen

floatation tanks (DNF) is a closed vapor recovery system. 

Primary factors influencing VOC emissions from the ETP-1 system is the temperature of

the wastewater, and the potential emission sources that include an equalization tank

(Tk-1067, floating roof, 3 million gallons) and the bioreactor ETP-1 itself. Tk-1067 is a

floating roof tank which meets the control standards of the District tank rule: Regulation

8 Rule 5 and is considered Best Available Control Technology. Both Tk-1067 and the

bioreactor may be VOC emission sources.

The post 1960's wastewater expansions were initially handled by the original effluent

collection and treatment system that discharges to ETP-1. In the 1990s, selected

streams were hard piped to a new treatment system that discharges to Effluent

Treatment Plant Two (ETP-2), a 2 million-gallon tank with 4600-cfm jet aeration.

Effluent discharging to ETP-2 is for the most part regulated by District Regulation 8,

Rule 8 and the U.S. EPA's 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart FF. ETP-2 is the more modern of

the two treatment schemes at the facility and boasts a totally enclosed system with

vapor recovery from wastewater generation up to the ETP-2 aerator. 

ETP-1 System

As previously stated the ETP-1 system is the main treatment conduit for wastewater

created in the western side of the refinery. This area contains mostly "heavy end"

production that includes lube oil production, cooling tower blow down, flexicoker

stripped sour water, boiler blow downs, chemical waste water, sanitary sewage and

crude storage area run off. In addition to these waste streams, process water from the

co-generation plant, the lube oil hydrotreater, and sulfur plant #4 is commingled with the

effluent to ETP-1. 
E-22

The average daily flow in to ETP1 is estimated at 2,600 gallons per minute (gpm). This

is usually gravity flowed via 30" and 18" lines to the head works of the main oil water

separator for the treatment plant, the API. If the flow is excessive due to storms and

rainwater run off, the facility has the ability to shunt water to uncovered Ponds 6 and 8

for temporary storage. Water stored in the ponds can then be mixed back into the

effluent stream under normal conditions at a point before ETP-1's main aeration pond or

to ETP-2.

At the API gross oil and solids are separated from the wastewater stream in a sealed

system, consisting of two fore bays and two main bays. Primary control of VOC

emissions from the API is by use of a water scrubbing system using ambient

temperature domestic water with an approximate temperature of 15.6 oC (60oF). The

scrubber system also uses one 55-gallon barrel of activated carbon as a secondary

“back-up” VOC control. The carbon barrel is designed to control VOCs in the 500-ppm

range.

Effluent from the API is then sent to two Dissolved Nitrogen Flotation (DNF) tanks to

further remove any suspended oils/petroleum contained in the waste stream following

initial treatment. The effluent temperature at this part of treatment is estimated to be

between 37.8oC (100oF) and 48.9 oC (120oF). The DNF units are a closed system with

VOC emissions minimized by a water scrubbing system with an activated carbon barrel

system like that used at the API.

From the DNF's wastewater is sent directly to Tank 1067 for equalization and then to

ETP-1's primary aeration pond. Tank 1067 is a 3 million-gallon floating roof tank that is

used for surge storage. From Tank 1067 the wastewater is sent to ETP1's main bioaeration pond. This bio-aerator consists of a 4 million-gallon open pond approximately

9 feet deep at any point. This pond contains between 10 and 13 floating aerators

moored by lines attached to perimeter anchors. Total horsepower of aerators is 675

horsepower. The numbers of aerators used varies depending on process and

maintenance schedules. The temperature of the effluent at this point of treatment is

usually between 26.7 oC (80oF) to 37.8 oC (100oF). From this point the effluent is

separated into two streams. Bio-solids are removed and sent to the bio-solids

thickener, and liquid effluent is sent through primary clarification to three dissolved air

flotation clarifiers for secondary clarification.

From secondary clarification the effluent is commingled with effluent from ETP-2 and

proceeds through two "polishing" ponds to the Selenium Treatment plant. This plant

consists of a continuous ferrous flocculation system that precipitates approximately 20

tons per day of iron hydroxide sludge containing eight pounds of selenium. This sludge

is dredged from the outfall pond of the flocculation plant and belt pressed for removal

off-site. The outfall pond itself contains six 5 horse power aerators which continue to

"polish" the effluent prior to treatment in the granular activated carbon (GAC) unit.

The final part of on-site wastewater treatment is the GAC unit. This unit consists of

twenty-four vessels containing up to 480,000 pounds of GAC. This filtration removes

any remaining turbidity, particulates or chemicals from the effluent stream. Maximum
E-23

flow though GAC is 7,000 gpm, although flow rates at this level will quickly plug the

GAC units with silt in one or two days. The final effluent then proceeds to the bay via a

24-inch multiport diffuser, located 20 feet under the Martinez Complex Wharf. 

ETP-2 System

Most of the more modern construction (post 1990's) at Plant #A0011 is hard piped to

ETP2. This consists of process drain out fall from the, stripped sour water, crude

desalter and brine desalter effluent, cat reformer effluent, delayed coker effluent and

recovered oil waste water. This effluent is initially pumped to two 1 million-gallon

equalization tanks, located in the central operations zone of the refinery; both tanks

have closed cone roofs and are linked to a vapor recovery system. 

From these fixed roof tanks effluent is pumped in hard pipe to Tank 12519, a 6 milliongallon floating roof equalization/surge tank located in the wastewater treatment plant.

Daily flows to this tank average 650 gpm. 

From this point the effluent is piped to two fixed-roof DNF tanks where oils and solids

are removed from the effluent and VOC emissions are controlled by a vapor recovery

compressor system, refrigeration system or activated carbon canisters. This system

represents the end of the hard piping for this effluent.

From the DNF's effluent is piped to the main aeration basin for ETP-2. Here subsurface

air jets force 4600 CFM of air through the two million-gallon biomass contained in the

tank. At this point the effluent steam is at a temperature of between 32.2 oC (90oF) to

37.8 oC (100oF). 

Having left the bio-aerator the effluent stream separates into two parallel gravity

clarifiers. Here again the effluent is separated into two streams. Bio-solids are

removed and sent to the bio-solids thickener, while liquid effluent is sent to pond 5E for

"polishing."

Pond 5E is a one-million-gallon settling pond that flows to the selenium treatment plant

on-site. Here the effluents from ETP-1 and ETP-2 are commingled and flow to the

selenium plant via a number of other "polishing" ponds and are then routed to the bay

via the GAC (see ETP1 above).

Bio-solids

When the waste streams separate at ETP-1 and ETP-2, bio-solids are sent via return

lines to the biosolids thickener at a rate of approximately 20 gpm. From here there are

two different paths to final wasting of this material. Thickened sludge is removed and

stored temporarily on site, until it is centrifuged by an outside contractor and landfilled at

a rate of 3,000 tons per year. 

However, the preferred method of disposal is incineration at the facility's three CO

boilers. This occurs continuously at a rate of up to 30 gpm. It is also possible to return

bio-solids to the biotreater from the thickener. This mechanism is also used to treat

soaps produced at the facility. Rather than have huge slugs of soaps produced on-site
E-24

being dumped directly to the waste water treatment system, they are collected in

tankers, commingled with bio-solids at the thickener and returned to the clarifiers for

biological treatment. This is done to avoid problems with foaming and up-sets of the

biological treatment system. 

Storm Water

In addition to these three treatment systems, Plant #A0011 also has five additional

storm water collection systems which function in tandem with and separately from ETP1 and ETP-2. According to storm water flow maps provided by Shell, as well as their

Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) permits, all storm water collected in

the "western side" of the refinery is discharged via ETP-1 to the San Francisco bay.

Storm water collected in the light oils processing area (LOP area) combines with runoff

from tank farms in the same drainage basin and is contained by three ponds in series

(commonly referred to as the Lake Slobodnik system), this system discharges directly

into Peyton Slough which flows into the Carquinez Strait.

Storm water runoff from a 234-acre eastern tank farm area is collected in two ponds in

series, which are each equipped with an oil baffle/weir and valve which is normally kept

closed. The discharge point from the ponds is to an unnamed earthen drainage course

at a point about 1500 feet south from the Mt. View Sanitary District treatment plant, then

into Peyton Slough which flows into the Carquinez Strait.

Storm water runoff from a central 31-acre area containing an emergency flare is

discharged from a pond equipped with an oil baffle/weir and valve (normally kept

closed) into a drainage course at a point about 900 feet south of the Mt. View Sanitary

District treatment plant, then into Payton Slough which flows into the Carquinez Strait.

Storm water runoff from a 7-acre propane/butane storage area is discharged from a

pond which is equipped with an oil baffle/weir and a valve (normally kept closed) into a

drainage course at a point about 600 feet south of the Mt. View Sanitary District

treatment plant, then into Payton Slough which flows into the Carquinez Strait.

Finally, storm water runoff from an approximately 5-acre central maintenance and

purchasing warehouse area is discharged to Contra Costa County storm drain culvert

where it in turn discharges to an unnamed earthen drainage course and eventually to

Payton Slough which flows into the Carquinez Strait. 

Oil/Water Separators, Low Point Sumps and Drains

During the course of the site visit to Plant #A0011, two oil/water separators and one low

point sump were identified as well as numerous drain and drain box configurations. 

As part of the review of materials available for Plant #A0011 it was possible, from detail

diagrams available for each phase of construction, to correlate the different drain

designs with the drains observed on site. It has also been possible to "trace back" the

18" and 30" effluent lines from ETP-1 to the western side of the refinery. At present,

information provided by drawings indicates three main drain collection stems in this

area, one proceeding north down Shell Avenue, one proceeding west along Marina

Vista and a third main conduit proceeding north by the main office building. All of these
E-25

lines cross into the effluent treatment plant and are commingled at the head works for

ETP-1.

The two oil water separators identified are also associated with the wastewater flow to

ETP-1. Both the Corrugated Plate Interceptor (CPI) and the Gross Oil Separator (GOS)

are located in the central area of the refinery and direct effluent flows into the main trunk

lines for transport to ETP-1.

The CPI contrary to its name does not contain any corrugated plates. The plates were

removed due to clogging by excess solids in the 500-gpm flow from the flexicoker plant.

The CPI is a closed system and now functions as an oil water separator. VOC

emissions are controlled by a water scrubber system backed up by an activated carbon

barrel identical to those previously described. Effluent at this point is estimated to be at

a temperature of 48.9 oC (120 oF). On the day of the site visit, two flat bed coke

recovery vessels were positioned at the CPI to recover coke solids being pumped off

the effluent at this point.

The GOS is of similar construction to the API at ETP-1 but does not utilize “flight

scrapers” to push oil into the collection trough. Nor does it have solids collection

sumps. It consists of a single bay and is primarily a gravity sump up stream of the API

used to remove heavy oils and solids. Again this is a closed system with VOC

emissions controlled by a water scrubber system backed up by an activated carbon

barrel. This system accommodates a flow of approximately 650 gpm. Solids are

recovered from this unit using a Vacuum truck and transported to the delayed coker for

recycling.

One low point sump was identified in the eastern production areas. This sump is the

main collection point for the stormwater run off for the light oils processing area. The

contents of this sump are pumped to the Lake Slobodnik system that is discharged

directly to Peyton Slough. This concrete sump did have some apparent residual

hydrocarbon staining and maybe of interest as a VOC source in this study.

Drains and Junction Boxes

As part of this survey an extensive survey of the on site drain and junction boxes was

under taken at this site. A range of construction was observed for the units at the

facility, this survey was conducted on 6/12/02 and started in the Op’s Central area of the

refinery.

At the Hydrogen, Flexi-gas, Dimersol and Sulfur plants a range of different drain

construction was observed. Pump stand drains varied between 6” to 4” and appeared

to be open. Junction boxes in the units were more mixed with three prevailing types of

construction 4’ x 4’ open boxes, 4’ x 4’ water sealed boxes and 4’ x 4’ “plug” sealed

boxes. Similar drain and junction box construction was observed in the Flexicoker, cat

cracker, cat gas plant and crude unit.
E-26

The only area that differed significantly from this construction was the Lubes area that

represents the oldest construction at the facility. Here 1’ x 1’ and 3’ x 2’ open surface

drains were observed around the pump stands.
E-27

Overview of Golden Eagle Oil Refinery

(Avon) Wastewater System
E-28

Overview of Golden Eagle Oil Refinery (Avon) Wastewater System

Introduction

The Golden Eagle Oil Refinery (Plant #B2758) in Avon, CA occupies an approximately

2,200 acre site in Martinez, California. This refinery has a daily throughput of

approximately 160,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) of crude oil primarily from the San

Joaquin Valley and Alaskan North Slope areas. This crude oil is refined at the facility to

produce gasoline, diesel and petroleum coke. In addition, Plant #B2758 also produces

approximately 140 tons of sulfur daily as a by- product of the on-site processes.

As part of the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts' (the District) 2001 Clean Air

Plan, the District, in cooperation with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), is examining the

wastewater systems for each of the Bay Area refineries to determine whether there are

significant potential emission reductions from control of any remaining uncontrolled

components of the wastewater systems, or through other measures. Most components

of refinery wastewater systems are already controlled through compliance with District

Regulation 8, Rule 8 (8-8), District New Source Review requirements, and U.S. EPA's

National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart

FF).

As part of this project a two day site visit (4/16/02 and 4/17/02) was conducted at Plant

#B2758 to assess the availability of information related to the waste water system and

to review the on-site collection and treatment of water which may have Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) emissions impacts.

Site History

At Plant #B2758, the refinery consists of several units of varying construction dates. A

review of these operating units reveals a number of phases of construction from the

1930’s to 1996. The oldest operating unit at the facility is the #3 crude unit which was

constructed in 1937. This unit has an associated desalter unit and the unit itself has

been retrofitted during a number of the subsequent projects at the site.

The 1940’s construction at the site saw the development of the #50 crude unit, #1 feed

prep plant, the FCC and #4 gas plant. Again many of these units have been retrofitted

as part of subsequent construction projects. The 1950’s saw a further expansion of the

facility with the construction of the #2 feed prep plant, the coker plant, the #5 gas plant,

the coker flasher, #1 hydrodesulfurization (#1 HDS) and reformer plant, #2 HDS and

reformer plant, the #1 hydrodearomatization (#1 HDA) plant and acid plant. This

construction occurred on the eastern side of tract 1 and is the most homogenous area

of the plant.

Additional expansion occurred in the 1960’s with the construction of a Hydrocracker

plant, #1 Hydrogen plant, a sulfur recovery unit and #7 boiler. This provided excess

gasoline production at the facility that was sufficient for approximately the next decade.
E-29

The second last phase of construction at the facility occurred in the 1980’s and

consisted of further gasoline production expansion. This occurred with the building of

#3 reformer, #3 HDS, an FCC unit, a scot unit and an ammonia recovery unit. The final

stage of construction at the facility occurred in the 1990’s and was associated with the

clean fuels and Benzene NESHAPS requirements. The construction included the

MTBE unit and the Benzene unit.

On-Site Waste Water Treatment

The waste water system at Plant #B2758 is defined by the location of the major process

units. The facility itself is divided into five “tracts,” numbers 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. The main

refinery units are located in tract #1 and #2 and effluent discharge from the process

units in these two areas are piped via process drains to a central pump station (#1

pump).

No.1 pump station is the beginning point in the effluent treatment system and from here,

wastewater flows into a “head channel” and then a four cell oil/water separator (API). It

is estimated that the temperature of the process water flows is in the range of 32.2 oC

(90oF) to 35 oC (95oF). From the API the effluent is routed through a four-cell dissolved

nitrogen floatation (DNF) unit to remove suspended oil solids. The API and DNF are

covered and under a nitrogen blanket. Following these units is an air stripper. This unit

is under vapor recovery, with gaseous emissions being routed to a furnace destruction

system. 

Effluent from the API is sent via #6 pump station to #1 surge pond for biological

treatment using aeration and bio-augmentation. It is estimated that the effluent

temperature at this point is at a minimum temperature of 21.1 oC (70oF). From #1 surge

pond effluent is routed to #2 surge pond for further settling of bio-solids prior to being

routed to the 150 million gallon oxidation pond in Tract 3 for further treatment.

From the oxidation pond effluent is routed to the RBC unit. This unit was initially used

to provide secondary biotreatment, but now is essentially a head works for the final

treatment since it was taken out of service with RWQCB approval. At the RBC unit the

effluent is dosed with ferric chloride and then proceeds through two clarifiers, followed

by two separate filtration systems operated in parallel. From these two filters water

proceeds through a granulated activated carbon unit (GAC) to either the clean water

canal or coke pond system.

The coke pond system consists of coke sluice water and effluent that is used in the

coke pile misting system. The commingled effluent from these ponds is routed via the

on-site clean canal system to a pump station for the 27-inch diameter outfall pipe

equipped with a diffuser, located under the Avon Wharf, 45 feet below mean lower low

water level.

API and DNF Systems

All onsite wastewater is commingled at #1 pump station prior to the head works to the

API with the exception of the acid plant effluent, the ammonia recovery unit, and the foul

water strippers. These streams are commingled at the neutralization tank which
E-30

discharges downstream of the API head works. #1 pump station contains two pumps, a

high speed 14,000 gallons per minute (gpm) pump and a low speed 5,000 gpm pump,

that supply an average of 3,500 gpm to the four cells of the API. This area also

contains a coarse screen to remove gross debris from the effluent stream. The effluent

at this point consists of process water from the following: refinery process wastewater;

coke pond overflow; cooling tower blowdown; boiler blowdown; non-segregated ballast

water; tank draws; neutralized demineralizer regeneration water from the water

treatment system; groundwater from remediation activities; and, non-hazardous

wastewater generated from off-site facilities; process waste water from the Monsanto

Company Catalyst Plant, cooling tower and boiler blowdown from Foster-Wheeler

Cogeneration Plant, cooling tower blowdown from Air Liquide Carbon Dioxide Plant, and

boiler blowdown from Air Products Hydrogen Plan. Sanitary wastewater enters the

system at the foul water pump station, which is then lifted to the neutralization tanks,

which in turn is discharged downstream of the DNF.

As previously stated, the API consists of four working cells all of which are covered

completely with the exception of a number of gasketed hatches. These cells allow

product from process waters to settle out via gravity. Oily surface waters and oily solids

are removed from the cells by top and bottom chain driven skimmers. Product removed

at this point is hard piped to tanks 669 and 700 for recovery. These cells are under

nitrogen and the temperature of the effluent at this point is estimated in the 32.2 oC

(90oF) to 35 oC (95oF) range. 

From the API cells, water flows under gravity into a four cell DNF unit. Here nitrogen

bubbles are used to remove any suspended product from the effluent prior to air

sparging. This unit is completely enclosed except for seven gasketed hatches that are

used to periodically test the effluent stream for benzene content. 

Following treatment in the DNF unit all waters flow under gravity to an air stripping

system prior to being pumped to #1 surge pond. This unit consists of an air sparging

system that removes any hydrocarbon volatiles from the effluent steam for destruction

in an on-site thermal furnace. This furnace treatment system is supported in case of

break down by a caustic wash and vapor pack carbon bed system. 

From the air sparging system water is pumped via #6 pump station through two pumps,

a high speed 6,750 gpm pump and a low speed 3,750 gpm pump, that supply an

average of 3,500 gpm to #1 surge pond. This represents the end of the “enclosed”

section of the treatment works.

#1 and #2 Surge Ponds

This activated bio-sludge system provides the primary treatment for effluent at the

facility. #1 surge pond consists of a five cell activated sludge treatment unit with

aggressive aeration in the first of the five cells. This pond is approximately 3 to 4 feet

deep and 1,400 feet long and the effluent temperature is estimated to be at a minimum

of 21.1 oC (70oF). There are approximately 41 aerators in the aggressive biological

treatment area of the pond. These are floating pontoon aerators operating at between

10 and 15 horse power (Hp). Sub surface curtains separate the pond into 6 cells.

Additional treatment is stimulated through out the system by bio-augmentation (addition
E-31

of appropriate bacteria) and by use of a number of differing types of aerators. These

include two 50 Hp lagoon master brush aerators, one 15 Hp brush aerator and several

pontoon aerators. 

Biosolids settle out in the #1 and #2 surge ponds. The #2 surge pond acts a secondary

settling vessel for the effluent from #1 surge pond and contains four aerators. Effluent in

the first cell of #1 Surge pond has been measured at 21.1 oC (70oF). From here effluent

is either sent to the oxidation pond or routed at 187 gpm to the facility industrial water

system to be used in various on site processes. 

Oxidation Pond and RBC Unit

Effluent not used in industrial processes from #2 surge pond is pumped to the oxidation

pond. The oxidation pond is a 150 million gallon, 104 acre settling, storage ,

equalization, and treatment system. This pond contains three to four 15 Hp aerators at

its southern tip and consists of a number of curtained separated cells with subsurface

flow through ports. Retention time in this pond is estimated at thirty days and the

average flows back to the final water treatment system are some where between 1 to 6

million gallons daily (MGD). It is estimated that the temperature of the waters leaving

the oxidation pond is ambient.

From the oxidation pond effluent is returned via two pump lines to a sump adjacent to

#2 surge pond. From this point the commingled pump station water is routed to the

RBC unit. The RBC unit was initially designed as a secondary biological treatment

unit. This treatment was to be provided by biological film growing on the plates of the

RBC unit, however, the treatment was discontinued. The unit still remains in the

wastewater circuit and provides a head works for the operating parts of the system. 

Effluent from the RBC unit is dosed using a flocculent and routed to two clarifiers via a

surface pipe.

Clarifiers and Filters

Flow from the RBC unit is split between two solids clarifiers that operate in parallel to

remove the flocculent-formed solids from the effluent via a weir system. Solids from this

system are returned to #1 surge pond for biological treatment. Both of these 140,000-

gallon tanks are open and receive flows of between 2 to 6 mgd. 

From this point the flow is again commingled and then re-split to flow through two

different filter types that operate in parallel. These filters, a granular round filter and a

Zimpro filter (a six-cell sand filter), are designed to remove any remaining effluent solids

and turbidity. Both filters are back washed frequently to improve efficiency and the

backwash is discharged in to a sump adjacent to the round filter unit for return to #1

surge pond. Effluent from this point is then sent to an open sump for final treatment at

the GAC unit.

GAC Unit, Coke Storage Ponds and the Clean Water Canal

The GAC unit at this facility consists of twelve 20,000 lb. carbon beds operated in pairs

that are designed to remove any remaining toxins or turbidity in the final effluent from
E-32

Plant #B2758. From this point the wastewater can be discharged directly to the bay via

the clean water canal or more commonly shunted to the coke ponds for use.

Effluent pumped to the coke pond is commingled with coke sluice water and is used in

the coke pile misting system to prevent particulate emissions. This water is retained in

the coke ponds as yet another equalization step prior to discharge to the clean water

canal.

The clean water canal head channel begins at the area adjacent to the API/DNF unit

and proceeds to northwards to the diffusion outlet head works. This area provides Plant

#B2758 with a failsafe system as the canal has a two to one and one half day retention

time and can be sampled at the head works to ensure the effluent meets all RWQCB

permit requirements. The facility has the ability to shunt water from this canal to either

the oxidation pond or #1 surge pond. 

The final facility effluent is pumped from the end of the clean canal by three vertical

pumps, to the 27-inch diameter outfall pipe and diffuser located under the Avon Wharf

45 feet below mean lower low water level.

Solid Waste

Solid Waste removal from the wastewater treatment system at this facility consists of

only one action, yearly dredging. This operation is undertaken primarily in #1 surge

pond and consists of a cell dredging unit that supplies a portable sludge dewatering

centrifuge. This unit is supplied by an outside contractor and is generally not vapor

controlled. It is estimated that 8,723 tons of sludge (70 to 75% moisture content) were

removed for landfilling in 2001. Any water generated is returned via out fall line to #1

surge pond. 

Storm Water

In addition to the wastewater treatment system, Plant #B2758 also has four additional

storm water collection systems which function in tandem with and separately from the

waste water system. Stormwater runoff from various on-site developed areas of Tracts

1, 2 and 3, and off-site facilities is commingled with the waste water steam and is

discharged via the 27-inch diameter outfall pipe located under the Avon Wharf.

Stormwater runoff from an area of approximately 120 acres in the central and western

portions of the Tract 4 tank farm is discharged from a series of holding ponds to a

holding ditch to Pacheco Creek at two possible locations. Since these two locations are

in proximity to each other, they are collectively designated as E-003.

Stormwater runoff from an area of 140 to 150 acres including the southeast portion of

the Tract 4 tank farm and all of the Tract 6 tank farm, and off-site facilities including Air

Liquide, Chevron Bulk Terminal Station, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, Texaco Pump

Station, and PG&E Substation is discharged to the head of Hastings Slough via six

launders (L-shaped overflow pipes). These six discharge locations are approximately a

foot away from each other. These discharge locations are collectively designated as E-
E-33

004. Stormwater runoff from various small areas throughout the Avon Refinery and the

Terminal correspond to the discharge locations shown in the following table:

Location Current E-005

Discharges

East side of Tract 1 None

North end of Tract 2 E-005-T2N

Northwest Corner of Tract 2 E-005-T2NW

South end of Tract 2 E-005-T2S(a, b, and c)

Southwest Corner of Tract 2 E-005-T2SW

North end of Tract 3 None

Southeast portion of Tract 3 None

Southwest portion of Tract 3 None

Northwest corner of Tract 4 E-005-T4NW

Southwest corner of Tract 4 E-005-T4SW

Northeast corner of Tract 6 E-005-T6NW

Southwest portion of Tract 6 E-005-T6SW

West end of Amorco Terminal E-005-AW

South side of Amorco Terminal E-005-AS

Sumps, Junction Boxes and Drains

As part of this site visit, an extensive tour of the various operating units was conducted

at Plant #B2758 that incorporated construction from all phases of building. A wide

range of drain, sump and junction box designs were observed at the facility and these

components varied with construction date and location.

The #3 crude unit at the facility represents the oldest part of the current facility having

being built in 1937. This area had numerous drain and sump designs. Typically, in the

older area of the construction, pump stands and pads were drained via grated surface

drains to 4’ x 4’ water sealed junction boxes and pad sumps. Also, one open junction

box was noted in this area adjacent to the vacuum crude units. In the newer area of this

unit, extensive retrofit had been done especially in the desalter area. Here, drains

consist of water sealed box drains and grated 4” p-trap type drains at pump stands.

The initial stop on the site visit was the process units on the western side of refinery

tract #1. The units observed the fluid coker, #5 gas plant, #4 gas plant #2 reformer and

#4 FCCU, while representing a homogenous 1950’s construction, presented a wide

range of differing drain and sump types. These areas generally contained a number of

2’ x 2’ junction boxes and low point sumps with and without water seals, a number of 6”

p-trap drains at the majority of pump stands, a number of 6” open or dry drains at pump

stands and a number of open or dry 4” and 6” shallow drains at and adjacent to pump

stands. It is assumed that the range of construction observed is associated with the
E-34

numerous upgrades and overhauls which have occurred at these units over the lifetime

of the refinery. 

Also constructed in the 1940’s, #50 crude unit represents the oldest and most

unchanged drain and sewer system observed at the site. In this case, numerous open

junction boxes and sumps of varying sizes were observed, as well as numerous open 6”

and 12” drains at pump stands and process units. While a number of p-trap controlled

drains were observed at pump stands adjacent to the desalter area, they were by far the

minority. 

The alkylation plant at the facility was constructed in the 1960’s and was again

observed to have a mixture of drain and sump types. The areas observed had a

majority of 6” p-trap sealed drains at pump stands, with various sealed and unsealed 2’

x 2’ junction boxes and sumps. In addition a 2’ x 4’ grated open drain was observed,

which flowed from various process area pads to various junction boxes and sumps.

The MTBE and Benzene Saturation unit at the facility represent the most recent phase

of construction at the refinery and were built in the early 1990’s. These areas boast a

totally enclosed drain system (hard piped) from which treated effluent eventually flows

to a p-trap controlled sewer line. 

It must be noted that with the exception of the MTBE and Benzene Saturation units,

numerous steam and “hot” process flows were observed to be free flowing to the sewer

and drain systems.
E-35

Overview of Valero Oil Refinery (Benicia)

Wastewater System
E-36

Overview of Valero Oil Refinery (Benicia) Wastewater System

Introduction

The Valero Oil Refinery (Plant #B2626) in Benicia, CA occupies an approximately 350

acre site in Benicia, California. This refinery has a daily throughput of approximately

135,000 barrels (1 barrel = 42 gallons) of crude oil primarily from the San Joaquin Valley

and Alaskan North Slope areas. This crude throughput is refined at the facility to

produce approximately 115,000 barrels of gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and 1,080 tons of

petroleum coke. In addition, Plant #B2626 is permitted to produce up to 286 long tons

per day of sulfur as a by- product of the on-site processes.

As part of the Bay Area Air Quality Management Districts' (the District) 2001 Clean Air

Plan, the District, in cooperation with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), is examining the

wastewater systems for each of the Bay Area refineries to determine whether there are

significant potential emission reductions from control of any remaining uncontrolled

components of the wastewater systems, or through other measures. Most components

of refinery wastewater systems are already controlled through compliance with District

Regulation 8, Rule 8 (8-8), District New Source Review requirements, and U.S. EPA's

National Emission Standard for Benzene Waste Operations (40 CFR Part 61, Subpart

FF).

As part of this project a two day site visit (4/23/02 and 4/25/02) was conducted at Plant

#B2626 to assess the availability of information related to the waste water system and

to review the on-site collection and treatment of water which may have Volatile Organic

Compounds (VOC) emissions impacts. Subsequently, two additional site visits were

conducted on July 1 and 2, 2002, and on August 20, 2002, to collect sewer and

wastewater treatment plant samples.

Site History

Plant #B2626 is located on the site of a former United States Army base which dated

back to the American Civil War. The refinery itself was constructed for the most part

between 1968 and 1969. This means that the facility’s construction is for the most part

homogeneous and integrated with the exception of only two other periods of minor

construction, the mid 1980’s and 1990’s.

As previously stated the bulk of the construction at this facility was performed between

1968 and 1969. Operating process units of this vintage are as follows: crude unit,

catalytic (cat.) feed hydrofiner unit, sulfur recovery unit, coker unit, alkylation plant, fluid

cat. cracking unit, hydrogen plants, powerformer unit and the hydrocracker unit. This

represents the bulk of the on-site process units. 

In 1982, the adjacent asphalt unit, formerly owned by Huntway, was constructed. This

facility, purchased by Valero in June 2001, converts “heavy” crudes to asphalt flux. This

site has its own on-site waste water pretreatment system that discharges partially-
E-37

treated effluent to the City of Benicia’s Publicly Owned Treatment Works for final

treatment. 

In the main refinery, a propylene dimerization unit was added in the process block in

1985. The final phase of construction at this facility was associated with the clean fuels

initiative in the early/mid 1990’s. This involved the construction of the on-site MTBE

plant in 1993 and the MRU unit in 1996. 

Interestingly, drain construction from all periods in the main process block has been

performed to a uniform set of design specifications that dates from the original 1968

schematic. 

On-Site Waste Water Treatment

The waste water collection system at Plant #B2626 is simple and well-defined due to

the nature of the construction at the facility. It essentially consists of four separate

collection trains, three of which are commingled at the central treatment area. The

fourth system, the system serving the asphalt plant, is routed separately to the City of

Benicia sewer treatment facility. 

Storm water runoff, process water, boiler and cooling tower blowdown are routed to the

sewer system in the main process block. Sour process water, and intermediate tank

water draws and finished product water draws, are routed through a separate hard pipe

system to a sour water stripper. Potentially oily water, such as desalter water and crude

tank draw water are routed through a deoiler system prior to being hard-piped to the onsite equalization tanks. These equalization tanks represent the beginning of the waste

water treatment facility. Here process block runoff and deoiler water are commingled

before being sent to oil/water separation. The temperature at these tanks typically

ranges between 24 oC (75oF) and 35 oC (95oF).

The treatment train for this commingled effluent consists of two parallel corrugated plate

separators (CPS) followed by two induced flotation separators (IFS) to remove oil and

solids. This system typically processes flows of approximately 1,200 gallons per minute

(gpm). From here effluent is routed to three parallel bio-oxidation units (“biox”) for main

treatment. At the biox units, effluent from the sour water stripper is commingled with the

other effluent at the site. A portion of the sour water stripper effluent is first passed

through a preparatory bio-oxidation ("pre-biox") system located adjacent to the main

biological treatment area. The effluent temperature at this point is approximately 32.2

oC (90o

F). The flow out of these biox units is generally about 1,500 gpm. 

From the biological aeration treatment cells the effluent passes through three clarifiers

in parallel that remove bio-mass. From this point the flow is directed through an

induced air flotation separator to remove residual bio-solids prior to selenium treatment.

Selenium treatment consists of a flocculation tank and inclined plate clarifier. This is the

final part of the treatment process prior to discharge to Suisun Bay. Discharge is via a

deep water outfall located about 1,100 feet offshore at a depth of 18 feet west of the
E-38

Suisun Reserve Fleet Anchorage. The outfall is a 12-inch diameter pipe with 3 diffusion

ports. 

Sour Water Strippers, Deoiler and Equalization Tanks

As previously stated the sour process water produced in the main refinery block is

hardpiped to a single sour water storage tank (Tank #2801), which has a fixed roof and

is linked to vapor and oil recovery systems. From here water is fed to a single sour

water stripper column (T2831) in the sulfur plant. The stripped sour water is hard piped

directly from this point to a tank for equalization and then to the waste water treatment

plant. It is estimated that the water at this point has a flow of 300 gpm and is at a

temperature of 37.8 oC (100 oF).

Water draw streams from the intermediate and finished product tanks are routed to two

cracked slop tanks operated in series for separation of oil and water. These tanks

include: TK-1753, an 87,000 barrel EFR tank with a secondary seal; and TK-1795, an

83,000 barrel EFR tank with a secondary seal. Miscellaneous aqueous and oily slop are

also offloaded into these tanks from vacuum trucks. The recovered oil is fed to the Fluid

Catalytic Cracking Unit or the Fluid Coker, while the sour water is hard-piped to the sour

water storage tank, TK-2801. 

Other minor process and storm waters from the main refinery block are routed to the

sewer system via drains that flow to two tanks that provide equalization capacity for the

waste water treatment train at the facility. 

The remaining effluent at the facility, water from the crude desalter unit and the crude

tank water draws, is processed in a deoiler unit. Crude desalter water is piped directly to

the deoiler unit. Crude water draws are piped to two tanks in series for separation of oil

and water, before processing in the deoiler. The two tanks include: TK-1757, a 30,000

barrel EFR tank with a secondary seal; and TK-1793, a 16,000 barrel IFR tank with a

primary seal. From this point water is pumped through a deoiler system.

The deoiler consists of a CPS unit followed by an ISF unit under a nitrogen blanket with

vapor recovery routed to the flare gas recovery header. Recovered oil is routed back to

a crude slop oil tank and the waste water is hard piped to the main equalization tanks to

be commingled with process water from the refinery process block.

At the equalization tanks the main sewer from the process block enters the waste water

treatment facility. This flow is estimated to be an average of 1,200 gpm and at

maximum can be 2,600 gpm. Flows in excess of 2,600 gpm are automatically routed

via spill overflow control to 12 million gallon storm water ponds for retention and then

treatment.

The equalization tank system itself consists of two large particulate strainers followed by

two 700 barrel fixed roof surge tanks that flow into two 20,000 barrel main tanks, both in

parallel trains. Effluent from the deoiler system, estimated at a flow rate of 350 gpm is

commingled with the sewer effluent in the main equalization tanks, and it is estimated
E-39

that the water temperature at this point is 32.2 oC (90oF). This system is totally enclosed

and vapors are routed to two 1,200 lbs. carbon canisters in series for control. It was

also noted during the site visit that two Baker tanks were situated next to this system.

Both were uncontrolled and were being used for sludge and heavy particulate removal.

Oil/Water Separation, Aeration and Clarification

Effluent from the equalization tanks is pumped via a 1⁄2 mile hard pipe to oil water

separation at the main waste water treatment plant. Oil/water separation is achieved in

two 1,500 gpm CPS units followed by two ISF units under nitrogen, both in parallel

trains. Again, this system is totally enclosed with vapors routed to two 700 lbs

activated carbon beds in series. The total flow rate at this point is approximately 1,200

gpm. 

Effluent from this point is routed to the main biotreatment unit at the facility via hard

pipe. It is at this point that all effluent streams at the facility are finally commingled. 

Effluent from the sour water stripper is routed to a tank that provides equalization

capacity. After the equalization tank, the effluent is routed to the three main

biotreatment cells in the waste water treatment train. A portion of the sour water

stripper effluent is first passed through two small biological treatment units (prebiox 1, a

60’ diameter open top tank 11’’ deep and prebiox 2, a 59’x10’x24’ rectangular open top

tank). Temperatures in the prebiox and biox units are estimated to be between 32.2 oC

(90oF) and 37.8 oC (100 oF).

As previously stated, the main biological treatment unit at the facility consists of three

aeration cells linked to three clarifiers, all of which operate in parallel. Influent into this

system is also treated with approximately 300 lbs of carbon per cell daily for odor

control and to aid in the removal of toxic compounds. The aeration units have

subsurface air spargers laid out in 6” lines that provide air to the bio mass at a total

average rate of 3,400 CFM. The clarifiers in this system act to remove carbon slurry and

biomass from the effluent stream and are weir type with hopper bottom sludge

recovery. Each aeration cell and clarifier is 47’x47’x16’ and the units' retention time is

approximately 17 hrs at normal flow rates. Effluent at this point is estimated to be at a

temperature of 32.2 oC (90oF). 

Selenium and Final Effluent Treatment

Following clarification, all effluent trains are again commingled and passed through an

induced air flotation unit (IAF).This unit is a portable Wemco unit used to remove

biomass and carbon left in the effluent after clarification. Flow rates at this point are

estimated at 1,500 gpm. From this point water flows to an open top surge tank (9’

diameter x 8’ high) prior to be being treated for selenium. 

Selenium treatment at the facility consists of a reactor clarifier with FeCl3 treating in a

central mixing area followed by sedimentation in an inclined-plate (Lamella) clarifier and

bottom wasting to thickening and dewatering. Following selenium treatment, water is

treated with caustic for final pH control and then routed to the bay through the deep

water outfall.
E-40

Asphalt Plant

As part of a recent purchase, Plant #B2626 acquired the former Huntway asphalt plant.

This plant consists of a small crude unit that processes primarily crude bottoms and

heavy product used in the production of numerous grades of asphalt flux. As this unit

was previously not part of the adjacent Valero facility, it has its own separate waste

water system.

Sour water, boiler blow down, contact cooler water and desalter water produced in the

main process block flow at a rate of 30 gpm via hard pipe from the onsite sewer system

to oil/water separation. At the oil/water separator (API) oil is removed via gravity

separation and returned to crude oil tankage. Heavy sludges are removed via vacuum

truck for oil recovery in Valero's fluid coker unit.

Following the API, effluent is passed through an IAF to remove excess oils and

particulates carried in solution. Again recovered oil is removed to crude tankage.

Effluent from this unit is then sent to a 3,800 gallon tank for equalization and in-line

chemical treatment. This tank is vapor controlled to a carbon canister. Following this

tank, waste water is pumped to two 2,100 barrel final holding tanks for testing prior to

discharge to the City of Benicia municipal sewer treatment system. All wastewater

equipment at the asphalt plant is abated by either a thermal oxidizer or carbon.

 

Solid Waste

Solid Waste removal from the main refinery’s waste water treatment system consists of

four actions: sludge and gross debris removal from the equalization tanks, sludge

removal from the deoiler, CPS and ISF units, biological sludge removal and selenium

sludge removal. 

As previously stated, gross debris including coke fines and heavy petroleum is removed

at the inlet filters to the equalization tanks. This material is stored in uncontrolled Baker

tanks and is eventually transported to the coker for oil recovery. 

Sludges from the deoiler and the two CPS/ISF waste water treatment trains are routed

to a primary sludge thickener for water removal. This is a fixed roof tank which is hard

piped to a fixed cone roof tank under nitrogen. Sludge from this system is pumped via a

pipe line to the coker for oil recovery. 

Biological sludge and carbon slurry from the aerators and clarifiers at this facility are

removed to an open top bio thickener at an approximate rate of 150 gpm. This sludge

is for the most part processed via centrifuge dewatering to about 16% solids final sludge

and removed for landfilling at a rate of about 17 tons per week. Finally, sludges

removed during the selenium removal are processed onsite via centrifuge dewatering

prior to being removed and landfilled by a private contractor. In both cases, no vapor

controls were observed or required on either the biox or selenium dewatering systems.

Storm Water
E-41

In addition to the storm water collected from the process block and treated in the main

effluent treatment facility, Plant #B2626 has a number of other systems which manage

rain water produced at the facility. Runoff from the paved process area of the asphalt

plant is treated in the on-site waste water facility. This runoff discharges into the city of

Benicia municipal sewer system for treatment at the POTW, and ultimately discharges

into the Carquinez Strait. Storm water runoff from selected non-process areas of the

asphalt plant is collected in Tank 33 and analyzed prior to discharge into the creek

known as "Beaver Creek". From there, the water flows through the ditch known as

"Buffalow Wallow", through a 72-inch culvert into Sulfur Springs Creek and ultimately

Suisun Bay.

The Refinery has fifteen (15) discreet stormwater outfalls identified in the NPDES permit

as follows:

E-002: Storm water runoff from an unpaved area of approximately 1.8 acres, located

along the western boundary of the wastewater treatment plant is discharged through a

ditch and several pipes into Sulfur Springs Creek which is contiguous with Suisun Bay.

E-003: Runoff from a 19 acre unpaved area is discharged near the Raw Water Break

Tank at the north end of Avenue A via a culvert to Sulfur Springs Creek.

E-004: Storm water runoff from a 0.51 acre gravel area between First Street and the

railway, on the south side of First Street is discharged west of Gate No. 4 into the

eastern end of a ditch (Beaver Creek), followed by a culvert, another ditch (Buffalo

Wallow), and a 72-inch culvert into Sulfur Springs Creek and ultimately Suisun Bay.

E-005: Runoff from a 69 acre area that is primarily unpaved (1% paved surface) located

west of the processing area is discharged west of Gate No. 4, on the south side of the

processing area via a spillway into the western end of a ditch (Beaver Creek), followed

by a culvert, another ditch (Buffalo Wallow), and a 72-inch culvert into Sulfur Springs

creek and ultimately Suisun Bay. A natural spring also discharges to this drainage.

E-006: Condensate from steam traps on the crude pipeline, groundwater seepage, and

storm water runoff from a 3.5 acre unpaved area along and under the crude pipeline,

starting at the southwest corner of the crude tank field and running northeast along the

perimeter of the tank field and Park Road collects in a concrete sump equipped with a

containment valve and a hydrocarbon detector. This sump discharges to a ditch to

Sulfur Springs Creek and ultimately Suisun Bay. 

E-007: Storm water runoff from a 0.69 acre gravel and paved area that is about 60%

paved discharges just east of Gate 4 via a tributary ditch (Buffalo Wallow) followed by a

72-inch culvert into Sulfur Springs Creek and ultimately to Suisun Bay.

E-008: Runoff from a 0.92 acre graveled railway area located east of the processing

area is discharged east of Gate No. 4 via a Culvert, into a ditch (Buffalo Wallow),

followed by a 72-inch culvert into Sulfur Springs creek and ultimately Suisun Bay.
E-42

E-009: Storm water runoff from a 0.25 acre 50% gravel and 50% paved area, located

between the railway and Avenue A is discharged along Avenue A on the southeast side

of the processing area via a culvert into Sulfur Springs creek and ultimately to Suisun

Bay.

E-010: Runoff from a 0.84 acre gravel and paved area that is 30% paved located

between the railway and Avenue A is discharged along Avenue A on the southeast side

of the processing area via a culvert into Sulfur Springs creek and ultimately Suisun Bay. 

E-011: Storm water runoff from a 0.38 acre unpaved area under and along the crude

pipeline on the north side of Park Road collects in a concrete sump equipped with a

containment valve, normally kept closed, and with a hydrocarbon detector. The runoff is

discharged on the north side of Park Road, where the refinery crude pipeline crosses

Park road, via a culvert that discharges into Sulfur Springs creek and ultimately to

Suisun Bay.

E-012: Runoff from a 0.78 acre primarily gravel area (10% paved) under a section of the

crude pipeline southwest of the crude tank field collects in a concrete sump equipped

with a containment valve, normally kept closed, and with a hydrocarbon detector. The

runoff discharges into the city of Benicia municipal sewer system and ultimately into the

Carquinez Strait.

E-013: Storm water runoff from a 1.2 acre (5% paved) area under the crude pipeline

southwest of Outfall 012 collects in a concrete sump equipped with a containment valve,

normally kept closed, and with a hydrocarbon detector. The runoff discharges into the

city of Benicia municipal sewer system and ultimately into the Carquinez Strait.

E-014: Runoff from a 0.35 acre unpaved area under the crude pipeline collects in a

concrete sump equipped with a containment valve, normally kept closed, and with a

hydrocarbon detector. The runoff discharges into the city of Benicia municipal sewer

system and ultimately into the Carquinez Strait.

E-015: Storm water runoff from a 0.50 acre unpaved area under the crude pipeline

collects in a concrete sump equipped with an automatic valve, and hydrocarbon

detector. The runoff is discharges into the city of Benicia municipal sewer system and

ultimately into the Carquinez Strait.

E-016: Runoff from a 0.07 acre unpaved area under the crude pipeline near the refinery

dock collects in a concrete sump equipped with a containment valve, normally kept

closed, and with a hydrocarbon detector. The runoff discharges via a culvert into the

Carquinez Strait. 

Discharges from these areas are permitted and monitored in accordance with the site’s

NPDES permit. 

Sumps, Junction Boxes and Drains
E-43

As part of this site visit, an extensive review of all drainage, sewer and water collection

systems was undertaken. However, Plant #B2626 is unique in that even though there

were three phases of construction over a 30-year period, it appears that all piping

systems are homogenous.

In the main process block the piping and junction boxes observed in the cat. feed

hydrofiner, the hydrocracker unit, the sulfur plant, the cat. cracking unit, the alky plant

and the MTBE plant are all similar. They generally consist of 4” open drains at pump

pads feeding either 4’ x 4’ or 2’ x 4’ water sealed junction boxes. While a number of

open surface drains and two open junction boxes were observed in the alkylation plant

these were by far the minority and were not typical.

In the Asphalt plant the process drain structure is different from the main refinery as it

was designed by a different company. These drains were constructed to be a 4” open

design but have been retrofitted with a box seal insert that achieves a seal similar to

that of a p- trap design. District permit conditions require water seals, P-traps, caps,

covers or equivalent on all process water drains.
Appendix F

Refinery Specific Sampling Plans
F-1

Chevron Products Company

(BAAQMD Plant #A0010)

Sampling Sites Wastewater VOC survey

July 22 - 24, 2002
F-2

Chevron Products Company (BAAQMD Plant #A0010)

841 Chevron Way

Richmond, California 94802-0627

Sampling Sites

Wastewater VOC survey, July 22, 23, 24 2002

Intention of the study is to determine VOC emissions from wastewater, ambient air

locations, and VOC emissions from ancillary wastewater system process units.

Water Sample = Coliwasa (Sample size = 250 ml glass open mouth jar) The term

stands for composite liquid waste sampler. A coliwasa is designed to take a composite

(from top to bottom) sample. The device used in this study is manufactured in highdensity polyethylene with and Teflon coated topper. Sample size = 250 (see: ASTM

D5495-94 (2001) Standard Practice for Sampling with a Composite Liquid Waste

Sampler).

Air Sample = air ambient air grab sample into a 6 liter Stainless steel Summa®

passivated canisters. Canisters begin evacuated and will be allowed to return to

ambient in wastewater areas and sewer openings.

Mechanics of Sampling: Sewer manholes and junction boxes will be sampled via

coliwasa or bucket. Bucket samples will be taken for those sample locations with water

depth less than one (1) foot. Process line sampling will be use standard Chevron

sampling procedures. The sample locations using coliwasa sampling will use the

following procedure:

Sample prep and organizational meeting:

Non-Refinery Personnel Damian Breen, Tim Dunn, Matt Gerhardt

Refinery Personnel Richard Sandman, Bob Chamberlain

Chevron Labor: Two (2) technicians with confined space equipment (plus

one laborer, if necessary)

Chevron Equipment: forklift, LEL & OVA meters

Brown & Caldwell

Equipment 1 liter caged bottle sampler

BAAQMD & ARB

Equipment

plastic pipe: (a four foot section of three inch PVC) coliwasa

tubes, associated plastic pipe to lower sampling device,

measuring tape, plumb bob, 14 Summa® passivated

canisters, one ice chest, ice. 10 250-ml sample glass wide

mouth bottles, 80 VOA glass 40-ml sampling vials, 40 1-

liter glass sampling containers, and two (2) alcohol

thermometers.

Time: 30 minutes maximum per wastewater sampling location

 Ambient air sampling, 15 minutes maximum per air sample.

Sampling Procedure for coliwasa sampling locations

28.Confirm if sampling area is a confined space entry using LEL meter and OVA

meter. If lowering sampling device is considered a confined space activity,
F-3

and then use Chevron confined space entry procedures. Monitor for

explosive gases using LEL throughout sampling activity, if necessary.

29.Take a measurement of organic gases at 2 inches below manhole lip using OVA.

and record measurement.

30.Take dimensions of sampling area and piping.

31.Measure depth of flow

32.Lower 3-inch pipe containing coliwasa into sampling area if flow exist. Sample

wastewater inside 3-inch pipe using coliwasa.

33.Retrieve coliwasa. Place sample in secure location

34.Measure and record sample temperature using glass thermometer

35.Store sample in wet ice.

36.Retrieve 3inch plastic pipe

37.Place used coliwasa samplers in plastic bag.

38.Place used 3inch PVC pipe place in plastic bag.

39.If no flow, collect air sample using Summa canister using sampling procedure

detailed in ARB QA manual Volume II Appendix Q.

40.Close sampling area.

Sampling Locations

Sample

Date

Chevron

Drawing

Sample PointSample

Location

Sample

Type

5 MH 1-4-0-6 on 36-inch Main

Street line

Air

7 MH 1-3-0-5 on 48-inch Pipe

Street line

Air

8 MH 1-6-0-2 on 60-inch

Division Street line

Water –

Coliwasa

F-252053-5

9 MH 1-5-0-6 on 36-inch Calol

Street line

Water –

sample thief

F-252052-4 3 Feed to 1A Separator Cell C Water –

sample thief

17B MH 2-2-0-3 on Foundation

Street where 18-inch line

enters

Water –

Coliwasa

7/22/2002

F-252051-4

18 MH 2-3-0-4 on 12-inch line

north of cooling tower

Water –

sample thief

16B Box 2-1-0-1 on 48-inch

Distillation and Reforming line

Water – tap

16 Box 2-3-0-1 on 12-inch LSFO

line

Air

17 Box 2-2-0-1 on 18-inch

Foundation Street line

Water –

Coliwasa

25D 24-inch Hill Street line at

Sulfur Plant

Water –

Coliwasa

7/23/2002 F-252018-2

25C 27-inch Hill Street line near

Octane Street

Air
F-4

25 Drain near 13 Separator Water –

sample thief

28B MH 3-3-0-2 or 3-3-0-3 on 60-

inch Hydro line

Air

28 MH 3-2-0-4 or 3-2-0-5 on 36-

inch FCC line

Water –

sample thief

25B 42" Storm Sewer between 13

Separator and Channel Street

Water -

Coliwasa

28D MH 3-3-0-4 or 3-3-0-5 on 60-

inch Hydro line

Water -

Coliwasa

F-252026-3

30 MH 3-3-0-8 on Hydro line Water -

Coliwasa

32 MH 3-3-0-10 on Hydro line Water –

sample thief

34 MH 3-2-0-12 on 24-inch FCC

line in polypropylene plant

Water –

sample thief

F-252027-2

33 MH 3-2-0-9 on 24-inch FCC

line in between Cutter and

Alkylate Streets

Water –

sample thief

31 MH 3-2-0-7 on 24-inch FCC

line in between Polymer and

Cutter Streets

Water –

sample thief

F-252026-3

31B MH 3-2-0-6 on 24-inch FCC

line at turn to cross Channel

Streets

Water –

sample thief

7/24/2002

- 51 Equipment blank Water –

Coliwasa

Notes:

3. Spiking – lab will spike a 1 out of ever ten water samples.

4. Preservation - lab will filter and preserve wastewater samples on day

samples were taken.

5. Trip/equipment blank prepared using laboratory deionized / low organic

water using unused coliwasa.

6. One duplicate will use a coliwasa (using new coliwasa) a new section of 3-

inch PVC pipe.

7. Sample Labeling Code example: C-1 for Chevron sample point #1. 

8. Field staff will measure the relative volumes of aqueous phase and oil

phase using a graduated cylinder. Staff will record phases present in sample

(e.g., solids, emulsion, water layer, and oily layer).

Procedure for analyzing the wastewater samples will be U.S. EPA method 8015/8021.

The wastewater samples are one phase (water). Each wastewater sample will result in

two analyses (TPH gasoline & TPH diesel). McCampbell Analytical 110, Second

Avenue South, D#7, Pacheco, CA 94553.
F-5

Phillips San Francisco Oil Refinery

(Plant #A0016) Rodeo, California

Sampling Sites - Wastewater VOC survey

August 5 - 6, 2002
F-6

Phillips San Francisco Oil Refinery (Plant #A0016) Rodeo, California

Sampling Sites

Wastewater VOC survey, August 5, 6 2002

Intention of the study is to determine VOC emissions from wastewater,

ambient air locations, and VOC emissions from ancillary wastewater system

process units.

Water Sample procedures: Two methods will be used to collect water samples.

A coliwasa sampler is the preferred method. However, If the depth of the

wastewater is less than one foot a grab sample method shall be used.

1. Coliwasa sample: Sample size = 250 ml glass open mouth jar.

(Coliwasa stands for composite liquid waste sampler). A coliwasa is

designed to take a composite (from top to bottom) sample. The device used

in this study is manufactured in high-density polyethylene with and Teflon

coated topper, maximum sample size = 250 ml. (Reference: ASTM method

D5495-94 (2001) Standard Practice for Sampling with a Composite Liquid

Waste Sampler).

2. Grab sample (Sample size = 1 liter container) A grab sample

is designed to collect a liquid samples whose upper surface can be accessed

by the suitable device, i.e., manhole. The device used in this study uses a

caged, i.e., protected, 1-liter glass sample container. (see ASTM method

D6759-02 Standard Practice for Sampling Liquids Using grab and Discrete

Depth samplers).

3. Air Sample = air ambient air grab sample into a 6 liter

Stainless steel Summa® passivated canisters. Canisters begin evacuated and

will be allowed to return to ambient in wastewater areas and sewer

openings.

Mechanics of Sampling: Sewer manholes and junction boxes will be sampled

via coliwasa or grab container. Process line sampling will be use standard

Phillips 66 sampling procedures.

Sample prep and organizational meeting:

Non-Refinery Damian Breen, Tim Dunn, Matt Gerhardt

Personnel

Refinery Personnel Dennis Quilici

Phillips 66 Labor: Two (2) technicians with confined space equipment

 (plus one laborer, if necessary)

Phillips 66 LEL meter, equipment to open sewer manholes, fork

Equipment: lift if necessary.
F-7

Brown & Caldwell 1-liter caged bottle sampler, i.e. grab sampler.

Equipment

BAAQMD & ARB plastic pipe: (a four foot section of three inch PVC)

Equipment coliwasa tubes, associated plastic pipe to lower sampling device,

measuring tape, plumb bob, 10 Summa® passivated canisters, one

ice chest, ice. 24 250-ml sample glass wide mouth bottles, 72 VOA

glass 40-ml sampling vials, 40 1-liter glass sampling containers,

OVA meter, one (1) thermometer.

 Time 30 minutes maximum per wastewater sampling location.

Ambient air sampling, 15 minutes maximum per air sample.

 Sampling Procedure for coliwasa and grab sampling locations

 1. Confirm if sampling area is a confined space entry using LEL meter and OVA

meter. If lowering sampling device is considered a confined space activity, and

then use Phillips 66 confined space entry procedures. Monitor for explosive gases

using LEL throughout sampling activity, if necessary.

 2. Take a measurement of organic gases at 2 inches below manhole lip using OVA.

and record measurement.

 3. Record dimensions of sampling area and piping.

 4. Measure depth of flow

 5. Lower 3-inch pipe containing coliwasa (or grab sampler) into sampling area if flow

exist. Sample wastewater using coliwasa or grab device.

 6. Retrieve sampler. Place sample in secure location

 7. Repeat sample collection as necessary. Secure a separate sample for sample

temperature measurement and observation of sample visual parameters using a

graduated cylinder. Measure and record sample temperature using thermometer

 8. Store sample in wet ice.

 9. Retrieve 3-inch plastic pipe

 10. Place used coliwasa samplers in plastic bag.

 11. Place used 3-inch PVC pipe place in plastic bag.

 12. If no flow, collect air sample using Summa canister using sampling procedure

detailed in ARB QA manual Volume II Appendix Q.

 13. Close sampling area
F-8

Sampling Locations

All sampling locations are shown on Phillips 66 drawing SFE 46-70-Y-1

Date & Location Type

Sample #

8/5/2002

1 Sump near Marine Terminal Air

2 Groundwater extraction Water – tap

3 Box 1272 Water – sample thief

6 Box 1426 Water – Coliwasa

9 Laboratory sump Water – sample thief

8 Box 1056 while Laboratory Water – sample sump pump was not

discharging, sampled thief from box

30 Dry weather sump Water – tap

25 Box 2410 Water – sample thief

23 Box 2348 Water – Coliwasa

24 Box 2312 Water – Coliwasa

22 Box 2421 Air

21 Box 2173 Water – Coliwasa

31 API Separator feed Water – tap

31B API Separator effluent Water – sample thief

32 DAF outlet Water – sample thief

33 PACT mixed liquor Water – tap

28 Box 1968 Water – sample thief

27 Box 1961 Water – sample thief

Date & Location Type

Sample #

8/6/2002

15 Box 1786 Air

16 Box 1848 Water – Coliwasa

17 Coke cutting water Water – tap

19 Salt water cooling Water – sample thief

18 Unicracker east Water – Coliwasa

19C Unicracker west Water – Coliwasa

19D Unit 220 Water – sample thief

19B Box 20036 Water – Coliwasa

13 Box 1723 Water – Coliwasa

14 Box 1752 Water – Coliwasa

12 Box 2041 Water – sample thief

34 Equipment blank Water – Coliwasa
F-9

Notes:

 1. Spiking – lab will spike a 1 out of ever ten water samples.

 2. Preservation - Samples will be taken with sample containers supplied by

McCampbell Analytical Inc. with preservative. Preserve wastewater samples will be

stored in wet ice and transported to lab on same day samples were taken.

 3. Trip/equipment blank prepared using laboratory deionized / low organic water

using unused coliwasa.

 4. One duplicate will use a coliwasa (using new coliwasa) a new section of 3-inch

PVC pipe.

 5. Sample Labeling Code example: P-1 for Phillips 66 sample point #1.

 6. Field staff will measure the relative volumes of aqueous phase and oil phase using

a graduated cylinder. Staff will record phases present in sample (e.g., solids,

emulsion, water layer, and oily layer).

 7. Procedure for analyzing the wastewater samples will be U.U. EPA methods

8015/8021. The wastewater samples are one phase (water). Each wastewater

sample will result in two analyses (TPH gasoline & TPH diesel). McCampbell

Analytical 110, Second Avenue South, D#7, Pacheco, CA 94553.
F-10

Shell Oil, Martinez, California

(BAAQMD Plant #A0011)

Sampling Sites - Wastewater VOC survey

July 31, 2002 and August 1, 2002
F-11

Shell Oil, Martinez, California, (BAAQMD Plant #A0011)

Sampling Sites Wastewater VOC survey

7/31/02 Wednesday and 8/1/02 Thursday

Intention of the study is to determine VOC emissions from wastewater,

ambient air locations, and VOC emissions from ancillary wastewater system

process units.

Water Sample procedures: Two methods will be used to collect water samples.

A coliwasa is the preferred sampling method to be used for TPH gasoline

analysis. However, if the depth of the wastewater is less than one foot or

a manhole/junction box opening is not available then a 1-liter grab sample

method shall be used to retrieve a representative sample.

 1. Coliwasa sample (Maximum sample size = 250 ml glass open mouth jar)

 (The term stands for composite liquid waste sampler). A coliwasa is

 designed to take a composite (from top to bottom) sample. The device

 used in this study is manufactured in high-density polyethylene with

 and Teflon coated topper. (Reference: ASTM method D5495-94 (2001)

 Standard Practice for Sampling with a Composite Liquid Waste Sampler).

 Samples will be transferred to 40-ml VOA for TPH gasoline analysis.

 2. Grab sample (Sample size = 1 liter container, with an aliquot

 transferred to 40-ml VOA if coliwasa not used.) The grab sample is

 designed to collect a liquid sample from a process pipe or from a

 fluid surface that can be accessed by the suitable device, i.e.

 manhole. The device used in this study uses a caged, i.e., protected,

 1-liter glass sample container. (See ASTM method D6759-02 Standard

 Practice for Sampling Liquids Using grab and Discrete Depth samplers).

 3. Air Sample = air ambient air grab sample into a 6 liter Stainless

 steel Summa® passivated canisters. Canisters begin evacuated and will

 be allowed to return to ambient in wastewater areas and sewer

 openings.

Mechanics of Sampling: Sewer manholes and junction boxes will be sampled

via coliwasa or grab container. Process line sampling will be use standard

Shell sampling procedures.

Sample prep and organizational meeting:

Non-Refinery Damian Breen, Tim Dunn, Matt Gerhardt, and one

Personnel additional BAAQMD staff to operate OVA meter.

Refinery

Personnel Dan Glaze
F-12

Shell Labor: One (1) technician with confined space equipment (plus

one laborer, if necessary)

 Shell Equipment: LEL meter, equipment to open sewer manholes, and a

forklift if necessary.

 Brown & Caldwell

 Equipment 1-liter caged bottle sampler, i.e. grab sampler.

BAAQMD & ARB Plastic pipe: (a four foot section of three-inch PVC) coliwasa tubes,

Equipment associated plastic pipe to lower sampling device, measuring tape,

plumb bob, 10 Summa® passivated canisters, one ice chest, ice. 24

250-ml sample glass wide mouth bottles, 72 VOA glass 40-ml

sampling vials, 40 1-liter glass sampling containers, one

(1) thermometer, and OVA meter.

Time: 30 minutes maximum per wastewater sampling location Ambient air

sampling, 15 minutes maximum per air sample.

 Sampling Procedure for coliwasa and grab sampling locations

 1. Confirm if sampling area is a confined space entry using LEL meter and OVA

meter. If lowering sampling device is considered a confined space activity, and

then use Phillips 66 confined space entry procedures. Monitor for explosive gases

using LEL throughout sampling activity, if necessary.

 2. Take a measurement of organic gases at 2 inches below manhole lip using OVA.

and record measurement.

 3. Record dimensions of sampling area and piping.

 4. Measure depth of flow

 5. Lower 3-inch pipe containing coliwasa (or grab sampler) into sampling area if flow

exist. Sample wastewater using coliwasa or grab device.

 6. Retrieve sampler. Place sample in secure location

 7. Repeat sample collection as necessary. Secure a separate sample for sample

temperature measurement and observation of sample visual parameters using a

graduated cylinder. Measure and record sample temperature using thermometer

 8. Store sample in wet ice.

 9. Retrieve 3-inch plastic pipe

 10. Place used coliwasa samplers in plastic bag.

 11. Place used 3-inch PVC pipe place in plastic bag.

 12. If no flow, collect air sample using Summa canister using sampling procedure

detailed in ARB QA manual Volume II Appendix Q.

 13. Close sampling area
F-13

Sampling Locations

(From Shell wastewater treatment schematic diagram DCN=665641)

Date: 7/31/2002

Sample # Sample Sample

# Location Type

30 ETP-2 equalization tank effluent Water – tap

15 ETP-1 equalization tank influent Water – tap

18 ETP-1 equalization tank effluent Water – tap

23 ETP-1 clarifier effluent Water – tap

36 ETP-2 equalization tank influent Water – tap

10 ETP-1 API separator influent Water – tap

11 ETP-1 influent (18"& 30" line) Water – tap

5 ETP-1 influent (18" line alone) Water – tap

12 ETP-1 API separator effluent Water – tap

20 ETP-1 mixed liquor Water – sample thief

22 Pond 8 Water – sample thief

21 Pond 6 Water – sample thief

8C Lube west Water – sample thief

8D Lube east Water – sample thief

2 CPI influent Water – sample thief

1B OpCen cooling tower blowdown Water – tap

35 SWS No. 7 bottoms Water – tap

3 Chemical plant Water – sample thief

8/1/2002

39 ETP-2 aeration basin feed Water – tap

32 Delayed coking unit pad sump for Water – tap

Air pumps P-14401/14402

32A Delayed coking unit pad sump for Water – tap

Air pumps P-13508/13509

32B Delayed coking unit pad sump for Water – tap

Air pumps P-14498/14499

35B Coke cutting water Water – tap

32C Delayed coking unit pad sump for Water – tap

Air pumps P-13942/13943

6 SWS No. 3 bottoms Water – tap

1 LOP cooling tower blowdown Water – tap

7A LOP north Water – sample thief

7B LOP south Water – sample thief

31 Desalter brine deoiler Water – tap

32D Cat. reformer column 31 stripper Water –caustic tap

32E Cat. reformer column 31 stripper Water – tap water wash
F-14

7F LOP manhole 6 Water – Coliwasa

7E LOP manhole 5 Water – Coliwasa

7C LOP manhole 3 Water – Coliwasa

8 Gross oil separator effluent Water – tap

33 Process water tank 13188 Water – tap

Notes:

 1. Spiking – lab will spike a 1 out of ever ten water samples.

 2. Preservation - Samples will be taken with sample containers supplied by

McCampbell Analytical Inc. with preservative. Preserve wastewater samples will be

stored in wet ice and transported to lab on same day samples were taken.

 3. Trip/equipment blank prepared using laboratory deionized / low organic water

using unused coliwasa.

 4. One duplicate will use a coliwasa (using new coliwasa) a new section of 3-inch

PVC pipe.

 5. Sample Labeling Code example: P-1 for Phillips 66 sample point #1.

 6. Field staff will measure the relative volumes of aqueous phase and oil phase using

a graduated cylinder. Staff will record phases present in sample (e.g., solids,

emulsion, water layer, and oily layer).

 7. Procedure for analyzing the wastewater samples will be U.S. EPA methods

8015/8021. The wastewater samples are one phase (water). Each wastewater

sample will result in two analyses (TPH gasoline & TPH diesel). McCampbell

Analytical 110, Second Avenue South, D#7, Pacheco, CA 94553.
F-15

Tesoro Refinery, (Golden Eagle Oil Refinery)

(BAAQMD Plant #B2758)

Sampling Sites - Wastewater VOC survey

August 5, 6 2002
F-16

Tesoro Refinery, a.k.a. Golden Eagle Oil Refinery (BAAQMD Plant #B2758)

Sampling Sites

Wastewater VOC survey, August 5, 6 2002

150 Solano Way, Martinez California

Refinery Background: The Golden Eagle Refinery is in Contra Costa County on the

eastside of San Francisco Bay in the city of Martinez. It has the capacity to process

168,000 barrels of petroleum daily. It converts crude oil primarily into gasoline. The

plant has fluid catalytic cracking, hydrocracking, reforming, alkylation and fluid coking

capabilities. The refinery processes heavier crude oil from Alaska's North Slope and

California's San Joaquin Valley. Crude oil arrives at Golden Eagle via tanker through

docks located on San Francisco Bay and via pipeline links to California oil fields.

Products are shipped to customers by truck, rail, tanker, barge and a product pipeline

network serving Northern California and Western Nevada.

Project Study: The study intends to determine VOC emissions from wastewater,

ambient air locations, and VOC emissions from ancillary wastewater system process

units.

Water Sample procedures: Two methods will be used to collect water samples.

A coliwasa sampler is the preferred method. However, If the depth of the

wastewater is less than one foot a grab sample method shall be used.

1. Coliwasa sample: Sample size = 250 ml glass open mouth jar. (Coliwasa stands

for composite liquid waste sampler). A coliwasa is designed to take a composite

(from top to bottom) sample. The device used in this study is manufactured in

high-density polyethylene with and Teflon coated topper, maximum sample size

= 250 ml. (Reference: ASTM method D5495-94 (2001) Standard Practice for

Sampling with a Composite Liquid Waste Sampler).

2. Grab sample (Sample size = 1 liter container) A grab sample is designed to

collect a liquid samples whose upper surface can be accessed by the suitable

device, i.e., manhole. The device used in this study uses a caged, i.e., protected,

1-liter glass sample container. (see ASTM method D6759-02 Standard Practice

for Sampling Liquids Using grab and Discrete Depth samplers).

3. Air Sample = air ambient air grab sample into a 6 liter Stainless steel Summa®

passivated canisters. Canisters begin evacuated and will be allowed to return to

ambient in wastewater areas and sewer openings.

Mechanics of Sampling: Sewer manholes and junction boxes will be sampled via

coliwasa or grab container. Process line sampling will be use standard Tesoro

sampling procedures.
F-17

Sample prep and organizational meeting:

Non-Refinery Damian Breen, Tim Dunn, Matt Gerhardt

Personnel

Refinery Michael De Leon, Sharon Lim, Marcus Cole, Susan

Personnel Leavitt

Tesoro Labor: Two (2) technicians with confined space equipment

(plus one laborer, if necessary)

Tesoro Equipment: LEL meter, equipment to open sewer manholes, fork

lift if necessary.

 Brown & Caldwell 1-liter caged bottle sampler, i.e. grab sampler.

 Equipment

 BAAQMD & ARB Plastic pipe: (a four foot section of three inch PVC)

 Equipment coliwasa tubes, associated plastic pipe to lower

sampling device, measuring tape, plumb bob, 10 Summa®

passivated canisters, one ice chest, ice. 24 250-ml

sample glass wide mouth bottles, 72 VOA glass 40-ml

sampling vials, 40 1-liter glass sampling containers,

OVA meter, one (1) thermometer.

 Time: 30 minutes maximum per wastewater sampling location.

Ambient air sampling, 15 minutes maximum per air sample.

Sampling Procedure for coliwasa and grab sampling locations

 1. Confirm if sampling area is a confined space entry using LEL meter and OVA

meter. If lowering sampling device is considered a confined space activity, and

then use Phillips 66 confined space entry procedures. Monitor for explosive gases

using LEL throughout sampling activity, if necessary.

 2. Take a measurement of organic gases at 2 inches below manhole lip using OVA.

and record measurement.

 3. Record dimensions of sampling area and piping.

 4. Measure depth of flow

 5. Lower 3-inch pipe containing coliwasa (or grab sampler) into sampling area if flow

exist. Sample wastewater using coliwasa or grab device.

 6. Retrieve sampler. Place sample in secure location

 7. Repeat sample collection as necessary. Secure a separate sample for sample

temperature measurement and observation of sample visual parameters using a

graduated cylinder. Measure and record sample temperature using thermometer

 8. Store sample in wet ice.

 9. Retrieve 3-inch plastic pipe

 10. Place used coliwasa samplers in plastic bag.

 11. Place used 3-inch PVC pipe place in plastic bag.
F-18

 12. If no flow, collect air sample using Summa canister using sampling procedure

detailed in ARB QA manual Volume II Appendix Q.

13. Close sampling area

Sampling Locations

See Sewer Map, Tosco Refining Company, Avon, CA (Used for 1999 Benzene

NESHAPS Report/Study)

Date: 8/13/2002

Sample Location Sample Type

Point 

16 Manhole 1-120 Water –oliwasa

15 Manhole 1-122 Water –Coliwasa

14 Manhole 1-058 Water –Coliwasa

13 Manhole 1-053 Water –Coliwasa

10 Manhole 1-030 Water –Coliwasa

8 Manhole 1-060 Water –Coliwasa

6 Manhole 1-025 Water –Coliwasa

4 Box V-004 Air

12 Manhole 1-017 Water –sample thief

7 Manhole 1-010 Air

5 Manhole 1-012 Water –Coliwasa

17 Manhole 1-021B Water – Coliwasa

 1-021 south of Manhole 1-013

3 Manhole 1-008 Water –sample thief

2 Manhole 1-004 Air

22 Manhole 1-006 Water – Coliwasa

1 Manhole 1-081 Water –sample thief

23 Manhole 1-069 Water – Coliwasa

8/14/2002

11 Manhole 1-021A (Manhole Water – Coliwasa 1-021 west of Tank 622)

18 Manhole 1-047 – only stream Water – sample thief from 3 HDS plant

19 Manhole 1-042 – only stream Water – sampled with cup on pole

entering from 3 Reformer

21 Manhole 1-036 Water – Coliwasa

24 Manhole 1-204 Air

25 Manhole 1-098 Water – sample thief

26 Manhole 1-210 Water – sample thief

27 Manhole 1-211 Air

28 Manhole 2-018 Water – sample thief

29 Manhole 2-004 Water – sample thief
F-19

33 Tract 3 drain by railroad Air tracks at NW corner of Can Filling Warehouse

32 Tract 3 near Speeder tracks Water – Coliwasa adjacent to West Canal

36 Tract 4 sump Air
F-20

Notes:

 1. Spiking – lab will spike a 1 out of ever ten water samples.

 2. Preservation - Samples will be taken with sample containers supplied by

McCampbell Analytical Inc. with preservative. Preserve wastewater samples will be

stored in wet ice and transported to lab on same day samples were taken.

 3. Trip/equipment blank prepared using laboratory deionized / low organic water

using unused coliwasa.

 4. One duplicate will use a coliwasa (using new coliwasa) a new section of 3-inch

PVC pipe.

 5. Sample Labeling Code example: P-1 for Phillips 66 sample point #1.

 6. Field staff will measure the relative volumes of aqueous phase and oil phase using

a graduated cylinder. Staff will record phases present in sample (e.g., solids,

emulsion, water layer, and oily layer).

 7. Procedure for analyzing the wastewater samples will be U.S. EPA methods

8015/8021. The wastewater samples are one phase (water). Each wastewater

sample will result in two analyses (TPH gasoline & TPH diesel). McCampbell

Analytical 110, Second Avenue South, D#7, Pacheco, CA 94553.

Procedure for analyzing the wastewater samples will be U.S. EPA method 8015/8021.

The wastewater samples are one phase (water). Each wastewater sample will result in

two analyses (TPH gasoline & TPH diesel). McCampbell Analytical 110, Second

Avenue South, D#7, Pacheco, CA 94553.
F-21

Valero Refining Company California

(BAAQMD Plant #12626 and Plant #12611

Sampling Sites - Wastewater VOC survey

August 20, 2002
F-22

Valero Refining Company California (BAAQMD Plant #12626 and Plant #12611)

Sampling Sites

Wastewater VOC survey, August 20, 2002

3400 East Second Street

Benicia, California 94510-1097

Project Study: The study intends to determine VOC emissions from wastewater,

ambient air locations, and VOC emissions from ancillary wastewater system process

units.

Water Sample procedures: Two methods will be used to collect water samples. A

coliwasa sampler is the preferred method. However, If the depth of the wastewater is

less than one foot a grab sample method shall be used.

Coliwasa sample: Sample size = 250 ml glass open mouth jar. (Coliwasa stands for

composite liquid waste sampler). A coliwasa is designed to take a composite (from top

to bottom) sample. The device used in this study is manufactured in high-density

polyethylene with and Teflon coated topper, maximum sample size = 250 ml.

(Reference: ASTM method D5495-94 (2001) Standard Practice for Sampling with a

Composite Liquid Waste Sampler).

Grab sample (Sample size = 1 liter container) A grab sample is designed to collect a

liquid samples whose upper surface can be accessed by the suitable device, i.e.,

manhole. The device used in this study uses a caged, i.e., protected, 1-liter glass

sample container. (See ASTM method D6759-02 Standard Practice for Sampling

Liquids Using grab and Discrete Depth samplers).

Air Sample = air ambient air grab sample into a 6 liter Stainless steel Summa®

passivated canisters. Canisters begin evacuated and will be allowed to return to

ambient in wastewater areas and sewer openings.

Mechanics of Sampling: Sewer manholes and junction boxes will be sampled via

coliwasa or grab container. Process line sampling will be use standard Valero sampling

procedures.

Sample prep and organizational meeting:

Non-Refinery Personnel Damian Breen, Tim Dunn, Matt Gerhardt

Refinery Personnel Eric Hengst

Valero Labor: One (1) technician (plus one laborer, if necessary)

Valero Equipment: LEL meter, equipment to open sewer manholes, forklift if

necessary.

Brown & Caldwell

Equipment

1 liter caged bottle sampler, i.e. grab sampler.

BAAQMD & ARB

Equipment

plastic pipe: (a four foot section of three inch PVC) coliwasa

tubes, associated plastic pipe to lower sampling device,

measuring tape, plumb bob, 10 Summa® passivated canisters,

one ice chest, ice. 24 250-ml sample glass wide mouth bottles,
F-23

72 VOA glass 40-ml sampling vials, 40 1-liter glass sampling

containers, OVA meter, one (1) thermometer.

Time: 30 minutes maximum per wastewater sampling location

Ambient air sampling, 15 minutes maximum per air sample.

Sampling Procedure for coliwasa and grab sampling locations

2. Confirm if sampling area is a confined space entry using LEL meter and OVA meter.

If lowering sampling device is considered a confined space activity, and then use

Valero confined space entry procedures. Monitor for explosive gases using LEL

throughout sampling activity, if necessary.

3. Take a measurement of organic gases at 2 inches below manhole lip using OVA.

and record measurement.

4. Record dimensions of sampling area and piping.

5. Measure depth of flow

6. Lower 3-inch pipe containing coliwasa (or grab sampler) into sampling area if flow

exist. Sample wastewater using coliwasa or grab device.

7. Retrieve sampler. Place sample in secure location

8. Repeat sample collection as necessary. Secure a separate sample for sample

temperature measurement and observation of sample visual parameters using a

graduated cylinder. Measure and record sample temperature using thermometer

9. Store sample in wet ice.

10.Retrieve 3-inch plastic pipe

11.Place used coliwasa samplers in plastic bag.

12.Place used 3-inch PVC pipe place in plastic bag.

13.If no flow, collect air sample using Summa canister using sampling procedure

detailed in ARB QA manual Volume II Appendix Q.

14.Close sampling area.

Sampling Locations

Sample

Date

Sample PointSample

Location

Sample

Type

5 ISF Effluent Water - tap

4 Chem Sewer Effl. Water - tap

6 Manhole 14 Water – sample thief

7 Manhole 15 Water – sample thief

3 Manhole 16 Water – Coliwasa

8 Manhole 6 Water – sample thief

11 Manhole 3 Water – Coliwasa

9 Manhole 11 Water – sample thief

8/20/2002

12 Equipment blank Water – Coliwasa
F-24

Sample

Date

Sample

Point

Sample

Location

Sample Type

6/19/2003 1 Lift Station Water - tap

2 Deoiler Water - tap

Desalter Water - tap

3 NESHAP 3 Water - tap

4 NESHAP 6 Water – Coliwasa

5 NESHAP 12 Water – Coliwasa

6 NESHAP 11 Water – sample thief

Sample Labeling Code example: 14-1 for Valero sample point 14 for 40 ml VOA, BTEX

analysis. Field staff will measure the relative volumes of aqueous phase and oil phase

using a graduated cylinder. Staff will record phases present in sample (e.g., solids,

emulsion, water layer, and oily layer).

Note: procedure for analyzing the wastewater samples will be U.S. EPA method

8015/8021. The wastewater sample are two phases (oily & water). Each wastewater

sample will result in two analyses.

Expected number of samples = 24-one phase samples (approx. 99% water & <1% oil)

(TPHg - 40 ml VOA & TPHd - 1 liter)

2-water trip blanks (100% water 40 ml VOA)

1-duplicate BTEX sample (approx. 99% water & <1% oil 40 ml VOA)

27 = Total # of samples expected to be delivered to McCampbell Analytical by 7 p.m. on

each sampling day.

Notes:

 1. Spiking – lab will spike a 1 out of ever ten water samples.

 2. Preservation - Samples will be taken with sample containers supplied by

McCampbell Analytical Inc. with preservative. Preserve wastewater samples will be

stored in wet ice and transported to lab on same day samples were taken.

 3. Trip/equipment blank prepared using laboratory deionized / low organic water

using unused coliwasa.

 4. One duplicate will use a coliwasa (using new coliwasa) a new section of 3-inch

PVC pipe.

 5. Sample Labeling Code example: P-1 for Phillips 66 sample point #1.

 6. Field staff will measure the relative volumes of aqueous phase and oil phase using

a graduated cylinder. Staff will record phases present in sample (e.g., solids,

emulsion, water layer, and oily layer).

 7. Procedure for analyzing the wastewater samples will be U.S. EPA methods

8015/8021. The wastewater samples are one phase (water). Each wastewater
F-25

sample will result in two analyses (TPH gasoline & TPH diesel). McCampbell

Analytical 110, Second Avenue South, D#7, Pacheco, CA 94553.

Procedure for analyzing the wastewater samples will be U.S. EPA method 8015/8021.

The wastewater samples are one phase (water). Each wastewater sample will result in

two analyses (TPH gasoline & TPH diesel). McCampbell Analytical 110, Second

Avenue South, D#7, Pacheco, CA 94553.
Appendix G

Correspondence between U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and

California Air Resources Board staff regarding

Wastewater Methodologies
June 26, 2002

Ms. Ginger Vagenas, Environmental Scientist

United States Environmental Protection Agency

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, California 94105

Dear Ms. Vagenas:

This is to request approval from the United States Environmental Protection Agency

(U.S. EPA) to use U.S. EPA method 8015/8021 for necessary volatile organic carbon

(VOC) laboratory analysis of wastewater samples. These samples will be collected as

part of a technical assessment being performed by the staffs of the Air Resources

Board (ARB) and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) to

characterize VOC emissions from refinery wastewater systems.

As part of this assessment, staff is in the process of characterizing the emissions from

wastewater systems for each of the five refineries in the San Francisco Bay area. This

characterization includes the collection of wastewater samples from each refinery for

VOC analysis. For your information, a proposed sampling plan for the collection of

wastewater samples at the Valero refinery in Benicia is provided in Attachment 1. The

results of the wastewater analysis will then be input into an emission model to develop a

VOC emission inventory specific to each refinery.

The current U.S. EPA VOC emission model references the use of U.S. EPA methods

25D and 305 for the determination of the VOC content of the wastewater samples.

Because of concerns regarding the use of U.S. EPA methods 25D and 305 for this

assessment, we are proposing the use of U.S. EPA methods 8015/8021 for wastewater

analysis. We believe that U.S. EPA methods 8015/8021 will provide results similar to

that of U.S. EPA methods 25D and 305, and since U.S. EPA methods 8015/8021 are

more commonly performed in California, will provide a cost savings over the use of U.S.

EPA methods 25D and 305. A more detailed justification for the use of alternative U.S.

EPA methods 8015/8021 is provided in Attachment 2.
I look forward to your reply and your continued support of this assessment. If you have

any questions please feel free to contact me at (916) 324-8029, or Mr. Jim Karas,

Manager, Air Quality Engineering at (415) 749-4742.

Sincerely,

Erik White, Manager

Engineering Evaluation Section

Attachments

cc: Ms. Rima Howell

D205-02

USEPA Mailroom

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Mr. Jim Karas, Manager

Air Quality Engineering

Bay Area Air Quality Management District

939 Ellis Street

San Francisco, California 94109


0

Appendix H

Refinery Wastewater Laboratory Analysis
Refinery 1 TPH(d) TPH(g) cyclohe

xane

MTBE Benzene Heptane Toluene Methyl 

Cyclohe

xane

Ethyl 

benzene

mXylene p-

ppb 1,600 130 3.5 ND 0.7 10 2.2 1.3 ND 0.5 

Toxchem+ closed drain 86% 80% 81% 79% 84% 78% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24% 17% 25% 18% 25% 18% 

Water9 open drain 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

240,000 21,000 128 ND 61 101 530 27 28 234 

Toxchem+ closed drain 77% 68% 72% 67% 75% 66% 65% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24% 17% 25% 18% 25% 19% 18% 

Water9 open drain 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

240 71 2.2 ND ND 8.9 0.5 0.7 ND 0.1 

Toxchem+ closed drain 78% 74% 70% 76% 68% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24% 25% 18% 25% 18% 

Water9 open drain 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

650,000 8,000 41 ND 300 82 140 74 21 27 

Toxchem+ closed drain 89% 85% 84% 83% 87% 84% 82% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24% 17% 25% 18% 25% 19% 18% 

Water9 open drain 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

180 90 1.4 ND 1.1 9.1 ND 1.1 ND ND 

Toxchem+ closed drain 89% 81% 84% 87% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24% 17% 25% 25% 

Water9 open drain 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 4% 4% 

140,000 2,000 11.6 ND 1.1 9.4 0.6 4.0 0.6 0.7 

Toxchem+ closed drain 93% 90% 89% 75% 91% 90% 88% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24% 17% 25% 25% 

Water9 open drain 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

3,000,00

0 

170,000 239 ND 110 110 2,835 520 53 

Toxchem+ closed drain 91% 88% 87% 90% 88% 86% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24% 17% 25% 25% 

Water9 open drain 99% 0% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 0% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

2,400,00 14,000 37.0 ND 42.0 237.0 150.0 136.0 90.0 178.0 
0 

Toxchem+ closed drain 91% 89% 88% 87% 90% 88% 86% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24% 17% 25% 18% 25% 19% 18% 

Water9 open drain 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 

2,200,00

0 

33,000 268.0 ND ND 121.0 26.0 545.0 87.0 17.0 

Toxchem+ closed drain 90% 86% 85% 88% 86% 83% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24% 17% 25% 18% 25% 18% 

Water9 open drain 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

Refinery 2 TPH(d) TPH(g) cyclo hexane MTBE Benzene Heptane Toluene Methyl Cyclo 

hexane

Ethyl 

benzene

m-Xylene p-Xy

9,500 1,200 226 ND 24 111 130 31 13 37 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.8495 0.7893 0.8105 0.7769 0.8327 0.7837 0.7659 0.7

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

2,700 740 12.7 ND ND 42.5 420 1.9 2.1 1.1 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.8495 0.8118 0.777 0.8327 0.7837 0.7661 

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 3% 0% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

37,000 80 17 ND ND 12 2 ND ND 1 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.9624 0.9377 0.9421 0.9366 

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 24.7% 17.9% 18.3% Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% ` 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 0% 0% 4% 4% 4% 

110,000 7,900 104 ND 40 604 410 110 34 34 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.9476 0.9310 0.9145 0.9197 0.9367 0.9269 0.9119 0.9

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 
Water9 manholes 4% 4% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3% 

250,000 12,000 43 ND 310 261 2,200 130 100 283 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.8850 0.8420 0.8393 0.8273 0.8678 0.8347 0.8142 0.8

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

610 110 4 ND ND 10

2

2 ND ND

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.9513 0.9289 0.9256 0.9419 0.9

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 4% 4% 

21,000 1,900 9 ND 53 92 110

5 13 28 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.9842 0.9803 0.9699 0.9750 0.9796 0.9781 0.9720 0.9

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 

670,000 10,000 57 ND 600 307 2,200 17 99 482 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.9004 0.8661 0.8564 0.8495 0.8825 0.8557 0.8350 0.8

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

100,000 5,600 78 ND 110 196 710 43 59 252 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.9382 0.9178 0.9033 0.9058 0.9264 0.9139 0.8975 0.9

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 

83,000 18,000 ND ND ND 1518 41 10.7 ND ND 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.859 0.849 0.8847 0.8

Toxchem+Jbox 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 3% 3% 3% 

830,000 1,300 9 ND ND 44 210

4

2 ND 
Toxchem+ closed 

drain 

 0.7732 0.7219 0.6716 0.7505 0.6569 0.6

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

250,000 22,000 531 ND 3,100 845 2,900 226 230 407 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.9399 0.9209 0.9027 0.9081 0.9272 0.9147 0.8981 0.9

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 4% 4% 3% 3% 4% 3% 3% 

36,000 580,000 952 ND 46,000 17,556 110,000 12,127 47,000 23,334 23

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.8276 0.7581 0.7836 0.7463 0.8097 0.7486 0.7337 0.7

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

300,000 1,700,00

0 

1,378 ND 10,000 26,204 81,000 6,225 15,000 8,175 3

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.8173 0.7448 0.7666 0.7316 0.7971 0.7292 0.7151 0.7

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

160,000 140 36 ND 0.61 15 ND 3.5 ND 0.1 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 0.8060 0.7280 0.7558 0.7863 0.7007 

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 24.6% 18.3% 18Water9 open drain 

 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 

Water9 manholes 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Refinery 3 TPH(d) cyclo hexane MTBE Benzene Heptane Toluene Methyl Cyclo 

hexane 

Ethyl 

benzene 

m-Xylene p-Xylen

 3,500 7.168 0.023 0.227 82.6 0.263 40 0.867 0.304 0.3 280,000 657 0 48 146 13 99 4 9  340 7,217 0 4,000 12,355 33,000 2,144 5,900 22,237 9,6 52,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
22 ND 19 397 790 113 76 286 1

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 81.82% 74.49% 77.26% 73.33% 79.98% 73.36% 72.00% 72.37% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% Water9 open drain 

 131% 0% 119% 124% 117% 128% 117% 115% 116

Water9 manholes 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3

92,000 975 0 740 6,630 8,200 992 2,300 10,411 4,7

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 85.84% ND 80.82% 81.33% 78.95% 84.11% 79.61% 77.27% 78.14% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% Water9 open drain 

 137% 129% 130% 126% 135% 127% 124% 125

Water9 manholes 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3

710,000 2,009 0 450 1,714 12,000 987 200 716 31,800 1,538 0 600 1,762 1,600 103 120 643 31,600 97 0 810 916 2,600 61 250 1,103 4270 13 0 5 31 10 5 1 6 860 12 0 1 42 17 21 5 3 95,000 160 0 410 311 2,100 181 160 509 181,000 192 0 390 394 1,900 145 150 373 197,000 172 0 370 362 1,700 113 140 369 1680 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 740,000 1,116 0 190 1,001 2,300 251 310 1,369 6

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 81.77% 74.71% 76.79% 73.19% 79.60% 72.88% 71.40% 71.82% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% Water9 open drain 

 131% 120% 123% 117% 127% 117% 114% 115

Water9 manholes 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3

92,000 975 0 740 6,630 8,200 992 2,300 10,411 4,7

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 85.84% 80.82% 81.33% 78.95% 84.11% 79.61% 77.27% 78.14% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% Water9 open drain 

 137% 129% 130% 126% 135% 127% 124% 125

Water9 manholes 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3

1,000,000 315 0 76 340 310 135 50 208 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 83.09% 76.67% 78.23% 75.01% 80.92% 74.96% 73.62% 73.96% 

Toxchem+Jbox 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% Water9 open drain 

 133% 123% 125% 120% 129% 120% 118% 118

Water9 manholes 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3
 980,000 41 0 18 113 100 124 55 138 

 Oil phase 27 0 0 160 29 372 43 0  59,000 28 0 49 114 300 95 95 339 1 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  5,000,000 78 0 290 341 460 43 29 75  3,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2,200 1,158 190 460 508 4,300 35 170 1,312 6 100 24 24 4 23 7 7 3 6  710,000 53,164 0 2,300 81,514 63,000 36,649 9,900 29,851 12,8 60 0 5 259 97 121 120 560 3 710,000 2,009 0 450 1,714 12,000 987 200 716 3 1,800 1,538 0 600 1,762 1,600 103 120 643 3 1,600 97 0 810 916 2,600 61 250 1,103 4 270 13 0 5 31 10 5 1 6  860 12 0 1 42 17 21 5 3  95,000 160 0 410 311 2,100 181 160 509 1 81,000 192 0 390 394 1,900 145 150 373 1 97,000 172 0 370 362 1,700 113 140 369 1 680 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1  740,000 1,116 0 190 1,001 2,300 251 310 1,369 6 1,000,000 315 0 76 340 310 135 50 208  980,000 41 0 18 113 100 124 55 138  oil phase 27 0 0 160 29 372 43 0  59,000 28 0 49 114 300 95 95 339 1 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  5,000,000 78 0 290 341 460 43 29 75  3,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2,200 1,158 190 460 508 4,300 35 170 1,312 6 100 24 24 4 23 7 7 3 6  710,000 53,164 0 2,300 81,514 63,000 36,649 9,900 29,851 12,8 60 0 5 259 97 121 120 560 3
Refinery 3 TPH(d) cyclo hexane MTBE Benzene Heptane Toluene Methyl Cyclo 

hexane 

Ethyl 

benzene 

m-Xylene p-Xylene 

 7.168 0.023 0.227 82.6 0.263 40 0.867 0.304 0.30 3,500 657 0 48 146 13 99 4 9  280,000 7,217 0 4,000 12,355 33,000 2,144 5,900 22,237 9,64 340 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

52,000 22 ND 19 397 790 113 76 286 12

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 81.82% 74.49% 77.26% 73.33% 79.98% 73.36% 72.00% 72.37% 

Toxchem+Jbox 

 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% 

Water9 open drain 

 131% 0% 119% 124% 117% 128% 117% 115% 116% 

Water9 manholes 

 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

92,000 975 0 740 6,630 8,200 992 2,300 10,411 4,75

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 85.84% ND 80.82% 81.33% 78.95% 84.11% 79.61% 77.27% 78.14% 

Toxchem+Jbox 

 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% 

Water9 open drain 

 137% 129% 130% 126% 135% 127% 124% 125% 

Water9 manholes 

 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

 710,000 2,009 0 450 1,714 12,000 987 200 716 31

 1,800 1,538 0 600 1,762 1,600 103 120 643 32 1,600 97 0 810 916 2,600 61 250 1,103 46 270 13 0 5 31 10 5 1 6  860 12 0 1 42 17 21 5 3 1 95,000 160 0 410 311 2,100 181 160 509 19 81,000 192 0 390 394 1,900 145 150 373 14 97,000 172 0 370 362 1,700 113 140 369 14 680 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 

740,000 1,116 0 190 1,001 2,300 251 310 1,369 64

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 81.77% 74.71% 76.79% 73.19% 79.60% 72.88% 71.40% 71.82% 

Toxchem+Jbox 

 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% 

Water9 open drain 

 131% 120% 123% 117% 127% 117% 114% 115% 
Water9 

manholes 

 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

92,000 975 0 740 6,630 8,200 992 2,300 10,411 4,75

Toxchem+ 

closed drain 

 85.84% 80.82% 81.33% 78.95% 84.11% 79.61% 77.27% 78.14% 

Toxchem+Jbox 

 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% 

Water9 open drain 

 137% 129% 130% 126% 135% 127% 124% 125% 

Water9 manholes 

 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

1,000,000 315 0 76 340 310 135 50 208 9

Toxchem+ closed drain 

 83.09% 76.67% 78.23% 75.01% 80.92% 74.96% 73.62% 73.96% 

Toxchem+Jbox 

 24.3% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18.1% 

Water9 open drain 

 133% 123% 125% 120% 129% 120% 118% 118% 

Water9 manholes 

 3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

 980,000 41 0 18 113 100 124 55 138 6

 oil phase 27 0 0 160 29 372 43 0  59,000 28 0 49 114 300 95 95 339 14 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  5,000,000 78 0 290 341 460 43 29 75 2 3,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2,200 1,158 190 460 508 4,300 35 170 1,312 65 100 24 24 4 23 7 7 3 6  710,000 53,164 0 2,300 81,514 63,000 36,649 9,900 29,851 12,82 60 0 5 259 97 121 120 560 32 710,000 2,009 0 450 1,714 12,000 987 200 716 31 1,800 1,538 0 600 1,762 1,600 103 120 643 32 1,600 97 0 810 916 2,600 61 250 1,103 46 270 13 0 5 31 10 5 1 6  860 12 0 1 42 17 21 5 3 1 95,000 160 0 410 311 2,100 181 160 509 19 81,000 192 0 390 394 1,900 145 150 373 14 97,000 172 0 370 362 1,700 113 140 369 14 680 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 1  740,000 1,116 0 190 1,001 2,300 251 310 1,369 64
 1,000,000 315 0 76 340 310 135 50 208 9

 980,000 41 0 18 113 100 124 55 138 6 oil phase 27 0 0 160 29 372 43 0  59,000 28 0 49 114 300 95 95 339 14 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  490 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  5,000,000 78 0 290 341 460 43 29 75 2 3,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  2,200 1,158 190 460 508 4,300 35 170 1,312 65 100 24 24 4 23 7 7 3 6  710,000 53,164 0 2,300 81,514 63,000 36,649 9,900 29,851 12,82 60 0 5 259 97 121 120 560 32

Refinery 4 TPH(d) TPH(g) cyclohexa

ne 

MTBE Benzene Heptane Toluene Methyl 

Cyclo 

hexane 

Ethyl 

benzene

m-Xylene p-Xyle

ppb 6,700 62,000 567 0 9100 2227 18000 512 2400 7597 2

 43,000 ND 26,000 0.8 0.7  25,000 <500 252 26,000 16 175 20 36 9.2 1  3,000 67 7.7 2,200 2.1 2 4 2.1 3 

45,000 160 7 29 4.1 17.5 24 4.2 5.5 31.3 1

Toxchem+ 

closed drain 

83.32% 36.97% 76.61% 78.87% 75.40% 81.53% 75.73% 74.14% 74.5

Toxchem+Jb

ox 

24.3% 4.7% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18

Water9 open 

drain 

133% 59% 123% 126% 121% 130% 121% 119% 11

Water9 

manholes 

3% 1% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

15,000 64 6.1 0.9 16.6 4.1 2.8 9.3 

Toxchem+ 

closed drain 

80.37% 72.40% 76.10% 71.35% 71.09% 71.00% 70.3

Toxchem+Jb

ox 

24.3% 4.7% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18

Water9 open 

drain 

129% 0% 116% 122% 114% 0% 114% 112% 11

Water9 

manholes 

3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 0% 3% 3% 

 11,000 ND 2.4 0.6  11,000 ND 1 0.2 
16,000 2,200 7.6 38 100.3 300 50 65 303 

Toxchem+ 

closed drain 

89.25% 85.15% 85.66% 83.85% 87.77% 84.90% 81.33% 83.3

Toxchem+Jb

ox 

24.3% 4.7% 17.0% 24.7% 17.9% 24.6% 18.7% 18.3% 18

Water9 open 

drain 

143% 0% 136% 137% 134% 140% 136% 133% 13

Water9 

manholes 

` 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

Refinery 5 TPH(d) TPH(g) cyclo hexane MTBE Benzene Heptane Toluene Methyl Cyclo 

hexane 

Ethyl 

benzene

m-Xylene p-Xy

 300,000 270 15 0 1.3 11 4.7 2 1.7 0.3  1,700 400 92 0 4.5 60 11 27 3.8 1.9 

62,000 210 8.8 0 1.1 12.4 3.4 2.3 1.4 0.3 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

89.80% 85.98% 85.81% 84.65% 88.31% 86.63% 83.65% 84.05% 

Toxchem+Jbox 12.59% 14.47% 11.62% 5.99% 13.18% 2.84% 11.92% 7.56% Water9 open drain 

99% 0% 99% 99% 135% 99% 99% 134% 134% 

Water9 manholes 

3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

 70,000 5,600 408 0 200 413 640 49 100 525.2 24 56,000 2,400 157 0 52 296 190 98 40 111.9 5 250,000 7,000 260 0 1200 496 1400 82 110 233  360,000 19,00

0 

261 0 190 18.3 480 51 95 499 2

630,000 27,00

0 

670 0 290 1855 650 60.4 120 275.5 15

Toxchem+ closed drain 

82.44% 75.63% 77.42% 74.11% 80.31% 73.92% 72.35% 72.78

Toxchem+Jbox 4.93% 4.76% 2.60% 0.43% 3.42% 0.34% 3.88% 1.06% Water9 open drain 

99% 0% 121% 99% 99% 99% 118% 116% 11

Water9 manholes 

3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

 330 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 
93,000 8,247 382 53 380 311 970 98.5 130 494 2

Toxchem+ closed drain 

89.96% 56.89% 86.24% 85.85% 84.89% 88.46% 85.83% 83.85% 84.25

Toxchem+Jbox 0.50% 9.89% 0.89% 6.56% 15.99% 0.07% 0.04% 0.53% 0.21% Water9 open drain 

99% 91% 138% 137% 99% 99% 99% 134% 13

Water9 manholes 

2.52% 1.80% 2.53% 0.81% 2.30% 2.23% 2.04% 1.96% 2.00% 

22,000 5,300 10.3 0 69 97 740 13 140 465 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

86.89% 81.74% 82.96% 80.45% 85.28% 81.33% 79.41% 79.80

Toxchem+Jbox 3.52% 22.98% 5.85% 15.73% 24.17% 0.31% 3.90% 1.68% Water9 open drain 

99% 0% 131% 99% 99% 99% 99% 127% 12

Water9 manholes 

1.78% 1.78% 0.52% 1.61% 1.56% 1.40% 1.35% 1.38% 

530,000 25,00

0 

973 0 680 471 2400 221 460 1594 7

Water9 manholes 

2.51% 2.73% 0.25% 2.16% 1.86% 1.50% 1.38% 1.47% 

61,000 36,94

1 

1687 59 0 3240 870 449 26 21 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

89.80% 56.18% 85.98% 85.82% 84.65% 88.31% 85.63% 83.66% 84.05

Toxchem+Jbox 14.56% 17.96% 13.93% 7.62% 16.44% 4.63% 2.64% 13.97% 8.45% Water9 open drain 

99% 90% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 134% 13

Water9 manholes 

3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

 9,900 11,00

0 

572 0 300 536 910 163 160 754 3

 2,600 590 9.9 0 2.2 24.9 11 4.7 3.7 24.5 1 3,100 55,00

0 

258 0 4600 2098 9100 651 1100 2526 12

 3,200 1,000 81.9 0 64 108.5 190 13.1 22 76.9 2

61,000 110,0

00 

957 0 940 4453 4800 2415 810 1218 4

Toxchem+ closed drain 

85.39% 79.63% 80.75% 78.30% 83.62% 78.87% 77.02% 77.43

Toxchem+Jbox 6.72% 7.20% 5.54% 2.16% 6.36% 1.32% 6.19% 3.40% 
Water9 open 

drain 

99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 99% 160% 16

Water9 manholes 

3% 0% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 

 23,000 20,52

0 

1108 480 1100 1318 4800 175 290 739 3

15,000 15,00

0 

1848 0 320 3314 1300 888 96 60 

Toxchem+ closed drain 

83.89% 77.41% 79.81% 76.20% 82.15% 76.68% 75.04% 75.42

Toxchem+Jbox 6.65% 7.35% 6.14% 4.51% 6.83% 1.91% 6.35% 4.48% Water9 open drain 

99% 0% 99% 99% 122% 99% 99% 120% 12

Water9 manholes 

1.35% 1.33% 0.81% 1.24% 1.25% 1.16% 1.14% 1.15% 

 5,800 1,900 207 0 150 489 390 123 32 27.2  31,000 3,320 2100 540 1300 180 1300 
0

Appendix I

Predicting VOC Emissions from Wastewater Processes

Using General Fate Models
Introduction22

District and U.S. EPA regulations require refineries to quantify emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOC) for all refinery areas including wastewater collection and

treatment facilities. Available methods include stack/field testing, published emission

factors, engineering equations, and general fate modeling (GFM). This technical

assessment document uses two GFMs to calculate area VOC emissions. Emissions are

based on refinery process area, flow rate, wastewater temperature and composition.

BACT/LAER emission factor equations were used to confirm the overall accuracy of the

GFM calculations.

What Are GFMs?

GFMs are computer models that can perform a mass balance for each specified

wastewater unit operation or the whole wastewater treatment facility. Use of GFMs for

air emissions is preferred due to the complexity and high cost of direct air sampling from

wastewater systems. GFMs estimate emissions losses from volatilization, stripping,

adsorption onto solids, and biodegradation. By using GFMs, it is possible to estimate

emissions from complex treatment configurations while considering split flows, liquid

streams, quiescent surfaces, weirs, drops, as well as aerated, biological, and covered

processes or any single operation or process.

Facility Data Used

GFMs are designed to be specific to each wastewater treatment facility. Knowledge of

facility-specific data is used to setup and run these models. The facility data used in this

assessment can be divided into three groups listed below:

• Influent Wastewater Characteristics - includes wastewater flow rate, temperature,

VOC compound concentrations from lab analysis, ambient temperature and wind

speed. Note: ambient temperature was set at 85OF and wind speed at 3.5 mph.

• Physical Design Characteristics - such as unit process dimensions (length, width,

depth, etc.), weir characteristics, and other features (are processes covered or

open to the atmosphere?)

• Operational Data - including the type of biological treatment, air flow rates,

ventilation rates of covered processes.

Advantages of GFMs

GFMs are widely accepted for estimating emissions generated from wastewater

treatment facilities. The U.S. EPA accepts emission estimates from both WATER9 and

TOXCHEM+. GFMs are particularly advantageous when projecting potential emissions

under varying existing and future flow and design conditions. GFMs can be employed

as an important planning tool for understanding where emissions are released, what

compounds are predominately emitted and how emissions may change based on

 

22 Predicting VOC Emissions from Wastewater Processes using General Fate Models (GFMs) by Mark E, Curto, etc. al.;

http://www.pirnie.com/readings/air_crnt/ac0995_2.htm
changing operational conditions. They can also be used to assess methods to reduce

emissions.
Appendix J

Comparison of General Fate Models

WATER9 and TOXCHEM+
J-1

Comparison of WATER9 and TOXCHEM+ Models

WATER9 and TOXCHEM+ are GFMs suitable for estimating VOCs in refinery settings.

Although these two models may be successfully used to estimate air emissions from

wastewater treatment facilities, some caution should be taken when using these GFMs

and interpreting their results. In general, the algorithms for these two models are the

same but some of the default assumptions made for each model may result in different

VOC estimates. However, calculating wastewater collection VOC emissions WATER9

and TOXCHEM+ provide similar results.

WATER9 has been shown to overestimate VOC emissions from sealed drains and

some treatment processes like bioreactors. This overestimation is primarily due to the

lack of temperature correction for Henry's law coefficients23and an underestimation of

the effects caused by sorption and biodegradation. WATER9 algorithms and

mathematical expression are based on BACT/LAER calculations and assumptions. The

primary BACT/LAER assumptions used are:

• Sewers are operated at 50% of design capacity

• Flow is 40% of design capacity

• Air VOC concentrations are in equilibrium with wastewater

• Wind Speed is 3.5 mph

WATER9 emission calculations are not corrected to reflect field measurements or

published correlations. Therefore WATER9 underestimation of emissions may occur

when target VOC compounds interact causing increased emissions, e.g. the impact of

azeotrope24 mixtures. However, these WATER9 limitations do not effect most

wastewater collection activities. Limitations of WATER9 primarily occur when the model

is used to predict emissions from unsteady treatment processes with changing flow.

TOXCHEM+ has been modified to include field based correlation data and can simulate

the dynamic response of treatment systems. TOXCHEM+ is typically considered more

accurate when estimating emissions from complex treatment and collection systems.

Note however, TOXCHEM+ assumes wastewater drains and manholes are sealed.

Therefore, the following factors should be considered when using these models:

• WATER9 and TOXCHEM+ provide very similar results for VOC emissions in

wastewater collection systems. However, TOXCHEM+ assumes all drains include a

water seal and manholes are sealed. Therefore, one needs to modify the

TOXCHEM+ program to identify unsealed refinery process drains and manholes or

use WATER9 to estimate open drain emissions. This assessment used WATER9 to

calculate open drain and manhole emissions.

 

23 Bailod, C.R. etc. al. Critical Evaluation of the State of Technologies and Fate of Toxic Compounds in Wastewater Facilities. Water

Pollution Control Federation Research Foundation Project Report 90-1, 1990.

24 Azeotrope: a mixture of liquids that boils at a constant temperature, at a given pressure, without change of composition, e.g.

mixtures of benzene and cyclohexane.
J-2

• WATER9 may overestimate some VOC treatment emissions since the model was

not calibrated using field test data. Therefore, results from TOXCHEM+ are preferred

for analysis of wastewater treatment operations, e.g. biological reactors, clarifiers,

selenium treatment. This assessment did not estimate emissions from treatment

operations.
0

Appendix K

Calculating VOC Emissions Using WATER9 and TOXCHEM+
K-1

Overview

This appendix describes the methodology used in the calculation of VOC emissions

from wastewater collection system components using TOXCHEM+ and WATER9

software modeling. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) are emitted from wastewater

collection and treatment systems through volatilization of organic compounds at the

liquid surface. Emissions can occur by diffusion or convection mechanisms, or both.

Diffusion occurs when organic concentrations at the water surface are much higher than

ambient concentrations. Petroleum hydrocarbons volatilize or diffuse into the air, in an

attempt to reach equilibrium between aqueous and vapor phases. Convection occurs

when air flows over the water surface, sweeping organic vapors from the water surface

into the air. The convection rate relates directly to the speed of the airflow over the

water surface. In this technical assessment the calculations assume that the airflow rate

is equal to the water flow rate. Other primary factors that affect the rate of volatilization

include wastewater:

• surface area

• temperature

• turbulence

• retention time in the system

• concentration of organic compounds in the wastewater and their physical properties,

such as volatility and diffusion in water

• presence of a mechanism that inhibits volatilization, such as an oil film.

Calculating Wastewater System VOC emissions

The following method was used to calculate VOC emissions:

1. Wastewater analytical data chromatograms were used to determine

concentration and identity of VOCs for specific refinery areas.

2. Model VOC emissions using block flow diagrams. A model was built to

represent the wastewater components and flow through a typical refinery

area.

3. WATER9 and TOXCHEM+ were used to determine percent emitted for each

compound in each wastewater collection component.

4. Refinery wastewater collection VOC emissions were calculated for special

cases.

5. Total refinery wastewater collection VOC emissions were calculated by

summing mass emissions from individual refinery areas.

6. Review of additional modeling assumptions to confirm model suitability.
K-2

A. Determining Concentration and Identity of VOCs

Wastewater analytical data was derived from gas chromatography (GC) analysis using

SW 84625 method 8015C as modified by California Department of Toxic Substances

(8015Cm) and SW 846 method 8021B (8021B). The concentration of each VOC

compound was calculated using the GC response factor and the mean calibration factor

obtained from laboratory prepared fuel standards. Method 8051Cm was used to

determine the total concentration of gasoline range C6-C12 petroleum compounds in the

sample. This result was reported as TPHg and this number excluded MTBE

concentration. Method 8021B was used to determine MTBE, benzene, toluene,

ethylbenzene, and total xylene concentration (BTEX).

Determination of VOC compounds not specifically reported, e.g., specific xylenes and

unidentified chromatograhphic peaks were assigned by analysis of the chromatograms.

Surrogates were selected for unassigned chromatographic peaks. Appendix L details

the selection of surrogates.

The laboratory analysis reported TPHg, TPHd, MTBE, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene,

and total xylene concentration, i.e. the sum of ortho-, meta-, and para-xylenes. In the

VOC modeling calculations Total wastewater VOC concentration for each refinery area

was set to equal the sum of TPHg and MTBE concentration. Typical values for

speciated wastewater analytical values are listed in Table K-1.

Table K-1:

Typical Speciated Wastewater Analytical Values

Surrogate Comment PPB

Benzene No 4.1

Ethylbenzene No 5.5

MTBE No 29.0

Toluene No 24.0

m- Xylene No by chromatogram 31.3

o- Xylene No by chromatogram 8.9

p- Xylene No by chromatogram 19.8

Cyclohexane Yes by chromatogram 7.0

Heptane Yes by chromatogram 17.5

Methyl Cyclohexane Yes by chromatogram 4.2

Methyl Naphthalene,2- Yes by chromatogram 0.0

Naphthalene Yes by chromatogram 18.8

1,2,4-Trimethyl benzene Yes by chromatogram 18.9

TPH(gasoline) No Sum of above except MTBE 160

TPH(diesel) No Oil & Grease concentration 45,000

 

25 SW-846 is an acronym for US EPA publication SW-846 Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods.
K-3

B. Modeling VOC emissions with Block Flow Diagrams

Refinery wastewater systems are large structures that encompass thousands of

wastewater collection devices over the entire facility. It is not possible to input the whole

collection structure into a computer model. Therefore, each refinery was partitioned into

representative areas to accommodate this limitation. This required between 3 and 15

subparts depending on the facility, (see Table K-2). The boundaries of each subpart

roughly corresponded to major equipment process blocks within the refinery, e.g., crude

units, cracking units, pipe-still areas, etc. Once each subpart within each refinery was

defined, a representative block flow model was created using WATER9 and

TOXCHEM+ software. A block flow diagram is a simplified diagram of the wastewater

collection path from inflow (drains), to outflow (flow out to a trunk line or treatment

system process). Using TOXCHEM+ and WATER9 block flow diagrams were created

for each refinery area. These diagrams only identified collection components: drains

(open and closed), junction box vents, manholes, 24-inch lateral sewer lines, and 18-

inch lateral sewer lines.

Table K-2 details number and type of collection components in each block flow model.

The ratio of controlled/uncontrolled drains, manholes and junction boxes was based on

previously submitted refinery data, (see Section VIII Table VIII-1).

Table K-2:

Collection Units in Each Refinery Block Flow Model

Refinery Uncontrolled

Drains

Controlled

Drains Manholes Junction BoxVents

Number of

Refinery Areas

1 29 15 34 11 9

2 20 24 10 3 15

3 23 21 80 27 4

4 22 22 18 6 3

5 44 0 8 3 14

C. Determining Percent Emitted for Compounds

To efficiently model VOC emissions from a wastewater collection system, it is

necessary to describe (or model) a chemical's ability to volatilize and be emitted from

each wastewater collection device. The software automatically determined the

appropriate mathematical expression to calculate each collection component's

emissions. This included calculating percent emitted for each compound and each

wastewater collection device, i.e., drains, manholes, and junction box vents. Table K-3

details the primary model default values.

The software models also allow one to condense the number of drains, junction boxes,

and manholes in a block flow diagram and still provide accurate emission factors for

individual VOC compounds being released from a specific wastewater collection

component. The ability to condense the number of wastewater components is based on

the fact that the underlying equations for a collection component (e.g. open & closed
K-4

drains) simplify at a defined range of flows. For example, percent VOC emitted from ten

4-inch open drains is the same for 100 4-inch drains if wastewater temperature, total

flow, and chemical concentration remain the same. The modeling calculations

confirmed this approach through multiple runs of the software models WATER9 and

TOXCHEM+. Therefore, each block flow diagram consisted of forty-four drains, with

proportional numbers of manholes and junction box vents as listed in Table K-2. This

technique simplifies the block flow diagram and allows one to use limited wastewater

sampling to accurately calculate percent emitted for individual compounds in

wastewater collection.

The changing data for a refinery area model calculation only included changes in

compound concentrations and changes in wastewater temperature for that area. Default

model assumptions were used for the other parameters in the wastewater block flow

diagrams. The default data for WATER9 and TOXCHEM+ are listed in Table K-3.

Additional modeling assumptions for WATER9 and TOXCHEM+ are listed at the end of

this appendix.

Table K-3:

WATER9 and TOXCHEM+ Default Values

Suspended Solids 100 mg/L

Flow 250 gpm

Volatile Suspended Solids Ratio 75%

Sewer slope 0.0344%

CSTR15

Main Lateral diameter 24 inches

Minor Lateral diameters 18 inches

Coefficient of roughness for components 0.14

Drain Diameter24 inches

Drain/Manhole drop height 24 inches

Jbox drop height 24 inches

Jbox Diameter 4 inches

1. Sewer reach mixing properties are modeled in TOXCHEM+ using a prescribed number of continuous-flow stirred tank reactors

(CSTRs). For a sewer reach, the number of CSTRs will divide the sewer in equal portions for both the liquid and gas

phases and for each CSTR the contents will be completely mixed.

2. Drain diameter in refinery wastewater process areas was four (4) inches.

The software provides an emission factor for each VOC chemical released from each

wastewater component based on wastewater data parameters such as concentration,

flow rate, and temperature. Using laboratory analysis data the model software

calculates the percent emitted for individual compounds for a specific wastewater

collection component. In the case of benzene for Refinery 2, area 1, the following series

of modeling calculations were performed:

• % benzene emitted from open drains in Refinery 2 area 1, (WATER9)

• % benzene emitted from closed drains in Refinery 2 area 1, (TOXCHEM+)

• % benzene emitted from manholes in Refinery 2 area 1, (WATER9)

• % benzene emitted from junction box vents in Refinery 2 area 1, (TOXCHEM+)
K-5

D. Determining VOC Emissions for Special Cases

In the case of Refinery 3 staff also calculated VOC emissions from large sewer junction

diversion boxes 1 through 4 using TOXCHEM+. Each box was modeled using Refinery

3 specific dimensions, chemical concentrations, flow rates, etc. for each box.

TOXCHEM+ provided specific VOC emissions for these boxes. Staff was unable to

determine VOC emissions from this type of boxes at other refineries since complete

structure dimensions were not available. Future site visits should allow staff to

determine these box dimensions and calculate VOC emissions from large diversion

boxes.

E. Refinery Area VOC Emissions and Total Refinery Emissions

The block flow model calculates a percent emitted for each compound or surrogate

identified from wastewater analysis. Area emissions (Lbs./day VOC) were calculated by

multiplying the identified species percent emitted by the total mass concentration of that

chemical species. Refinery area VOC emissions are based on chemical species and

concentration, percent emitted and the wastewater flow rate through each refinery area.

Total refinery wastewater collection VOC emission is the sum of each area VOC

emission. The calculation of each area's VOC emissions can be calculated using the

following equation:

Lbs. VOC emitted per day =i (Q * VOCi * percent emitted * 60 MINUTES * 24 HOURS)

Where: Q = Flow rate through refinery area in pounds per minute

VOCi = Concentration of compound or surrogate I, in ppm.

In conclusion, WATER9 and TOXCHEM+ were used to calculate the percent of each

individual chemical species emitted from each area collection component using a

unique block flow model for each Refinery. The sum of these area emissions equaled

the total refinery VOC emissions for wastewater collection. These calculations were

checked using equations from BACT/LAER documentation 26. Individual tables listing

the results of the VOC calculations for each refinery area are available upon request,

tdunn@arb.ca.gov.

F. Review of Additional Modeling Assumptions to Confirm Model Suitability.

The following assumptions were reviewed and confirmed to as suitable default setting

for area models by duplicate software runs.

1. Ventilation Rate of Drop structures: Calculations set liquid flow-rate equal to

air-flow rate. Model liquid flow rate = 250 gpm and air flow rate = 33.42 cubic

ft/min.

 

26 Industrial Wastewater Volatile Organic Compound Emissions, EPA-450/3-90-004, January 1990.
K-6

2. Drop Height: Averaging drop heights taken from sewer drawings lead to

overestimating emissions by setting an arbitrarily high evaporation area.

Therefore, the model set default drain drop height to twenty-four (24) inches and

equals zero for sewer T connections. Twenty-four inches is the median drop

height for drain structures.

3. Tailwater Depth. Used 40% of design fraction as depth of wastewater in laterals.

4. Stream Width. Use Pipe diameter (24 and 18 inches) found at time of sampling.

5. Sewer Reach Properties

Diameter: used 18 and 24 inches

Slope use topographic maps => average slope over land area = .0344%

Pipe Length used lateral lengths of 50, 100, 200, 300, 400 feet in

TOXCHEM+ calculations. WATER9 did not use pipe data for

open drain and manhole calculations.

Pipe Roughness use default WATER9 and TOXCHEM+ roughness coefficient

No. of CSTRs use 5 as number of CSTRs (only used in TOXCHEM+)

6. Influent to Collection System: Assumed no forced air input. Air-flow is equal to

water flow.

7. Compound Identification

a. Take reported known compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total

xylenes, and MTBE from lab data

b. Total TPHg - (BTEX) = (C6 - C12) total ppb of surrogates. Exclude MTBE

since MTBE is not included in TPH(g) total

c. Use chromatogram of C6 - C12 to identify surrogates Assign

concentrations of surrogates to chromatogram ranges. Surrogates

concentrations are proportional to chromatogram peak areas.

8. Connections between sewers: Ignored "loop" or "cross" connections between

lateral lines since these flows have no effect on total area flow.

9. Non-sampled Inputs to sewers: Ignored since percent emitted for compound or

surrogate does not change unless average flow and concentration through

refinery area changes.

10. Sample concentrations: For samples collected in manholes downstream of

inputs, assume upstream calculations are terminated. Initiate new area

according to sampling plan.
0

Appendix L

Use of Surrogates and Surrogate Selection for Modeling
L-1

A. Modeling and the use of Surrogates for Data Analysis

It is desirable to group hydrocarbon compounds into a small number of fractions having

similar transport properties to simplify modeling. This data analysis grouped surrogate

compounds having specific equivalent carbon number ranges. This is a reasonable

level of accuracy, given the assumptions in modeling the behavior of hydrocarbons in

water and is consistent with other approaches dealing with complex mixtures27. The

surrogates used in this study are shown in Table K-1.

Table L-1:

TPH Surrogate Fractions

Carbon

Number

Range

TPH Surrogate Fraction

Compound

Solubility

(parts per billion)

2 – 6.5 Cyclohexane 55,000

6.5 – 7 Heptane 3,400

7 – 8.5 Methyl Cyclohexane 14,000

8.5 – 10 1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene 57,000

10 – 12 Naphthalene 31,000

12 - 14 2,-Methylnaphthalene 24,600

Significant effort was made to ensure the chemical concentration (ppb) assigned to

each surrogate fraction was correct and the total mass balance of petroleum fractions

for each sample was maintained. Computer modeling with Toxchem+ can determine if

these assumptions are sensitive to this simplification. This sensitivity analysis was

performed and it was shown that the choice of the surrogates shown in Table J-1 versus

other chemical candidates with similar equivalent carbon numbers does not result in

changes in predicted VOC emissions.

B. Analytical Requirements for Surrogates

The identification of the surrogates must be consistent with available analytical results.

The relative percent of each petroleum fraction in the mixture is needed when

calculating a mixture-specific petroleum VOC concentration. U.S. EPA method

8015/8021 provides total petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations for gasoline and diesel

fractions plus specific concentrations for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes,

and MTBE. The concentration of each representative fraction in the wastewater was

used in predicting the VOC emissions. The speciated distinct chemical results used in

the VOC calculations were provided in Appendix H. The selection of surrogates is

based on the principle of equivalent carbon number (EC) and retention time in a boiling

point gas chromatographic (GC) column. The chromatogram shown below in Figure

J-1 identifies areas of the chromatogram that to correspond to known compounds and

surrogates.

 

27 Selection of Representative TPH Fractions Based on Fate and Transport Considerations, John B. Gustafson, Ph.D., Joan Griffith

Tell, Ph.D., Doug Orem, © 1997 by Amherst Scientific Publishers.
L-2

Figure L-1

Typical Refinery Wastewater TPH(G) Chromatogram

EC Vs Boiling Point

C. Equivalent Carbon Number

The EC is related to the boiling point of a chemical, normalized to either the boiling point

of the n-alkanes or its retention time in a boiling point GC column. This relationship,

displayed in Figure J-2, was empirically determined28. Thus, for chemicals where the

boiling point is known, an equivalent carbon number can be easily calculated. For

example, hexane contains six carbons and has a boiling point of 69oC. Its equivalent

carbon number is six. Benzene, also containing six carbons, has a boiling point of 80 oC.

Based on benzene’s boiling point and its retention time in a boiling point GC column,

benzene’s equivalent carbon number is 6.5. This approach is consistent with methods

routinely used in the petroleum industry for separating complex mixtures. The use of EC

values are typical of how analytical laboratories report carbon numbers for chemicals

evaluated on a boiling point GC column.

D. Summary of Surrogate Properties used in Data Analysis

The laboratory chromatograms for each sample were used to identify concentrations of

surrogates. Each specific compound, as listed in Table J-1, was used as a

representative surrogate for a specific area of the chromatogram. For example, in the

 

28 Ibid.
L-3

EC range of 7 to 8.5 methyl cyclohexane was chosen to represent all petroleum species

that were detected between benzene and toluene. This technique ensures that the

relative percent of each fraction is maintained and known compounds, e.g. benzene and

toluene qualify the ranges.
0

Appendix M

Description of Methodology Used to Determine Cost Estimates
M-1

Cost Estimates for Refinery Drains and

Manholes
M-2

Cost Calculations to Water Seal all District Refinery Drains Refinery

Totals

Total # of uncontrolled Refinery drains 8,599

# of Refinery drains to be controlled 8,599

Drain I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total drain population 103188

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for monthly I & M program 4.30

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $12,899

Annual cost of monthly I& M drain inspections $292,366

Drain I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Drain population 34396

# of operators required for Drain I & M program 1.43

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $6,000

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $99,156

Drain I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 17198

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.72

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $3,000

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $49,578

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each drain $400

Capital cost for all drains $3,439,600

Annualized Cost @ 7% $488,423

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $4,220,389

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $4,807,968

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $3,977,601

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each drain $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled drain $8,599,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $1,221,058

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $10,112,424

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $9,919,214

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $9,869,636
M-3

Cost Calculations to Seal all drains Refinery 1

Total # of uncontrolled Refinery drains 1,677

# of Refinery drains to be controlled 1,677

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

drain I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total drain population 20124

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.84

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $2,516

Annual cost of monthly I& M drain inspections $57,018

drain I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 6708

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.28

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $839

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $19,006

drain I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 3354

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.140

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $419

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $9,503

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each drain $400

Capital cost for all drains $670,800

Annualized Cost @ 7% $95,254

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $823,072

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $785,060

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $775,557

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled drain $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled drain $1,677,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $238,134

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $1,972,152

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $1,934,140

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $1,924,637
M-4

Cost Calculations to Seal all drains Refinery 2

Total # of Refinery drains 1,100

# of Refinery drains to be controlled 1,100

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

drain I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total drain population 13200

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.55

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $1,650

Annual cost of monthly I& M drain inspections $37,400

drain I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 4400

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.18

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $550

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $12,467

drain I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 2200

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.092

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $275

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $6,233

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each drain $400

Capital cost for all drains $440,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $62,480

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $539,880

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $514,947

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $508,713

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled drain $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled drain $1,100,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $156,200

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $1,293,600

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $1,268,667

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $1,262,433
M-5

Cost Calculations to Seal all drains Refinery 3

Total # of Refinery drains 572

# of sealed drains none

# of Refinery drains to be controlled 572

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

drain I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total drain population 6864

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.29

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $858

Annual cost of monthly I& M drain inspections $19,448

drain I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 2288

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.10

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $286

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $6,483

drain I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 1144

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.047666667

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $143

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $3,241

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each drain $400

Capital cost for all drains $228,800

Annualized Cost @ 7% $32,490

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $280,738

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $267,772

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $264,531

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled drain $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled drain $572,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $81,224

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $672,672

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $659,707

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $656,465
M-6

Cost Calculations to Seal all drains Refinery 4 500

# of sealed drains none

# of Refinery drains to be controlled 500

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

drain I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total drain population 6000

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.25

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $750

Annual cost of monthly I& M drain inspections $17,000

drain I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 2000

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.08

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $250

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $5,667

drain I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 1000

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.04

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $125

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $2,833

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each drain $400

Capital cost for all drains $200,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $28,400

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $245,400

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $234,067

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $231,233

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled drain $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled drain $500,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $71,000

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $588,000

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $576,667

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $573,833
M-7

Cost Calculations to Seal all drains Refinery 5 4,750

# of sealed drains none

# of Refinery drains to be controlled 4,750

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

drain I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total drain population 57000

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 2.38

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $7,125

Annual cost of monthly I& M drain inspections $161,500

drain I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 19000

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.79

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $2,375

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $53,833

drain I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 9500

# of operators required for drain I & M program 0.395833333

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $1,188

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $26,917

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each drain $400

Capital cost for all drains $1,900,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $269,800

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $2,331,300

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $2,223,633

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $2,196,717

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled drain $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled drain $4,750,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $674,500

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly drain I&M $5,586,000

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly drain I&M $5,478,333

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual drain I&M $5,451,417
M-8

Cost Calculations for Water Seal on all Drains Refinery 5 Totals

Total # of Refinery Drains 11786

# of controlled drains 3187

# of Refinery drains to be controlled 8599

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1.00

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1.00

Current I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 141432

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000/yr

# of operators required for current I & M program 5.9

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $27,000

Annual cost of I & M (monthly inspections) $410,500

Current I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 47144

# of operators required for current I & M program 1.96

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $15,000

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $142,400

Current I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total drain population 23572

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.98

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $15,000

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $78,700

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor)X(Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each drain $400

Capital cost for all uncontrolled drains $3,439,600

Annualized Cost @ 7% $488,423

Annual Cost @ 7% (monthly, $400) $898,923

Annual Cost @ 7% (quarterly, $400) $630,823

Annual Cost @ 7% (bi-annually, $400) $567,123

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor)X(Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each drain $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled drains $8,599,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $1,221,058

Annual Cost @ 7% (monthly, $1000) $1,631,558

Annual Cost @ 7% (quarterly, $1000) $1,363,458

Annual Cost @ 7% (bi-annually, $1000) $1,299,758
M-9

Cost Calculations to Seal all District Manholes Refinery

Totals

Total # of Refinery Manholes 5,778

# of sealed manholes none

# of Refinery drains to be controlled 5,778

Manhole I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total manhole population 69336

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for monthly I & M program 2.889

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $8,667

Annual cost of monthly I& M Manhole inspections $196,452

Manhole I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 23112

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.963

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $6,000

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $68,595

Manhole I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 11556

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.4815

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $3,000

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $34,298

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each manhole $400

Capital cost for all manholes $2,311,200

Annualized Cost @ 7% $328,190

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $2,835,842

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $3,232,628

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $2,673,688

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each manhole $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled manhole $5,778,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $820,476

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $6,794,928

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $6,667,071

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $6,632,774
M-10

Cost Calculations to Seal all Manholes Refinery 1

Total # of Refinery Manholes 1,965

# of sealed manholes none

# of Refinery manholes to be controlled 1,965

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Manhole I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total manhole population 23580

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.9825

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $2,948

Annual cost of monthly I& M Manhole inspections $66,810

Manhole I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 7860

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.3275

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $983

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $22,270

Manhole I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 3930

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.16375

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $491

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $11,135

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each manhole $400

Capital cost for all manholes $786,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $111,612

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $964,422

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $919,882

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $908,747

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled manhole $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled manhole $1,965,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $279,030

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $2,310,840

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $2,266,300

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $2,255,165
M-11

Cost Calculations to Seal all Manholes Refinery 2

Total # of Refinery Manholes 570

# of sealed manholes none

# of Refinery manholes to be controlled 570

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Manhole I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total manhole population 6840

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.285

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $855

Annual cost of monthly I& M Manhole inspections $19,380

Manhole I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 2280

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.095

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $285

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $6,460

Manhole I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 1140

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.0475

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $143

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $3,230

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each manhole $400

Capital cost for all manholes $228,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $32,376

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $279,756

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $266,836

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $263,606

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled manhole $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled manhole $570,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $80,940

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $670,320

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $657,400

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $654,170
M-12

Cost Calculations to Seal all Manholes Refinery 3

Total # of Refinery Manholes 1,941

# of sealed manholes none

# of Refinery manholes to be controlled 1,941

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Manhole I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total manhole population 23292

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.9705

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $2,912

Annual cost of monthly I& M Manhole inspections $65,994

Manhole I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 7764

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.3235

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $971

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $21,998

Manhole I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 3882

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.16175

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $485

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $10,999

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each manhole $400

Capital cost for all manholes $776,400

Annualized Cost @ 7% $110,249

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $952,643

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $908,647

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $897,648

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled manhole $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled manhole $1,941,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $275,622

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $2,282,616

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $2,238,620

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $2,227,621
M-13

Cost Calculations to Seal all Manholes Refinery 4 402

# of sealed manholes none

# of Refinery manholes to be controlled 402

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Manhole I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total manhole population 4824

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.201

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $603

Annual cost of monthly I& M Manhole inspections $13,668

Manhole I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 1608

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.067

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $201

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $4,556

Manhole I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 804

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.0335

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $101

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $2,278

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each manhole $400

Capital cost for all manholes $160,800

Annualized Cost @ 7% $22,834

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $197,302

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $188,190

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $185,912

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled manhole $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled manhole $402,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $57,084

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $472,752

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $463,640

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $461,362
M-14

Cost Calculations to Seal all Manholes Refinery 5 900

# of sealed manholes none

# of Refinery manholes to be controlled 900

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Manhole I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total manhole population 10800

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.45

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $1,350

Annual cost of monthly I& M Manhole inspections $30,600

Manhole I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 3600

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.15

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $450

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $10,200

Manhole I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total manhole population 1800

# of operators required for manhole I & M program 0.075

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $225

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $5,100

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each manhole $400

Capital cost for all manholes $360,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $51,120

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $441,720

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $421,320

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $416,220

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled manhole $1,000

Capital cost for all uncontrolled manhole $900,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $127,800

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly manhole I&M $1,058,400

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly manhole I&M $1,038,000

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual manhole I&M $1,032,900
M-15

Cost Estimates for Refinery Junction Boxes
M-16

Cost Calculations to Seal all District Junction Boxes Refinery

Totals

Total # of Refinery Junction Boxes 1,926

# of sealed Junction Boxes none

# of Refinery drains to be controlled 1,926

Junction Box I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total Junction Box population 23112

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for monthly I & M program 0.963

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $2,889

Annual cost of monthly I& M Junction Box inspections $65,484

Junction Box I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 7704

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.321

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $6,000

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $26,865

Junction Box I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 3852

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.1605

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $3,000

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $13,433

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each Junction Box $2,000

Capital cost for all Junction Boxes $3,852,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $546,984

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $4,464,468

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $5,038,317

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $4,412,417

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each Junction Box $2,500

Capital cost for all uncontrolled Junction Box $4,815,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $683,730

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $5,564,214

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $5,525,595

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $5,512,163
M-17

Cost Calculations to Seal all Junction Boxes Refinery 1

Total # of Refinery Junction Boxes 655

# of sealed Junction Boxes none

# of Refinery Junction Boxes to be controlled 655

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Junction Box I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total Junction Box population 7860

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for monthly I & M program 0.3275

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $983

Annual cost of monthly I& M Junction Box inspections $22,270

Junction Box I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 2620

# of operators required for quarterly I & M program 0.109

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $328

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $7,423

Junction Box I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 1310

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.05

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $164

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $3,712

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each Junction Box $2,000

Capital cost for all Junction Boxes $1,310,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $186,020

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $1,518,290

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $1,503,443

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $1,499,732

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled Junction Box $2,500

Capital cost for all uncontrolled Junction Box $1,637,500

Annualized Cost @ 7% $232,525

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $1,892,295

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $1,877,448

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $1,873,737
M-18

Cost Calculations to Seal all Junction Boxes Refinery 2

Total # of Refinery Junction Boxes 190

# of sealed Junction Boxes none

# of Refinery Junction Boxes to be controlled 190

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Junction Box I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total Junction Box population 2280

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.095

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $285

Annual cost of monthly I& M Junction Box inspections $6,460

Junction Box I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 760

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.031666667

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $95

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $2,153

Junction Box I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 380

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.015833333

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $48

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $1,077

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each Junction Box $2,000

Capital cost for all Junction Boxes $380,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $53,960

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $440,420

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $436,113

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $435,037

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled Junction Box $2,500

Capital cost for all uncontrolled Junction Box $475,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $67,450

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $548,910

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $544,603

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $543,527
M-19

Cost Calculations to Seal all Junction Boxes Refinery 3

Total # of Refinery Junction Boxes 647

# of sealed Junction Boxes none

# of Refinery Junction Boxes to be controlled 647

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Junction Box I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total Junction Box population 7764

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.3235

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $971

Annual cost of monthly I& M Junction Box inspections $21,998

Junction Box I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 2588

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.107833333

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $324

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $7,333

Junction Box I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 1294

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.053916667

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $162

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $3,666

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each Junction Box $2,000

Capital cost for all Junction Boxes $1,294,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $183,748

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $1,499,746

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $1,485,081

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $1,481,414

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled Junction Box $2,500

Capital cost for all uncontrolled Junction Box $1,617,500

Annualized Cost @ 7% $229,685

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $1,869,183

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $1,854,518

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $1,850,851
M-20

Cost Calculations to Seal all Junction Boxes Refinery 4 134

# of sealed Junction Boxes none

# of Refinery Junction Boxes to be controlled 134

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Junction Box I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total Junction Box population 1608

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.067

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $201

Annual cost of monthly I& M Junction Box inspections $4,556

Junction Box I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 536

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.022333333

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $67

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $1,519

Junction Box I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 268

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.011166667

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $34

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $759

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each Junction Box $2,000

Capital cost for all Junction Boxes $268,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $38,056

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $310,612

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $307,575

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $306,815

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled Junction Box $2,500

Capital cost for all uncontrolled Junction Box $335,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $47,570

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $387,126

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $384,089

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $383,329
M-21

Cost Calculations to Seal all Junction Boxes Refinery 5 300

# of sealed Junction Boxes none

# of Refinery Junction Boxes to be controlled 300

Total # of Refinery Drains (refinery% of total) 1

# of Refinery drains to be controlled (refinery% of total) 1

Junction Box I&M program (Monthly Inspections)

# of inspections required for the total Junction Box population 3600

# of inspections per operator (Assume 100 inspections/day, 5

day/week, 48 wks/yr)

24000

# of operators required for current I & M program 0.15

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $450

Annual cost of monthly I& M Junction Box inspections $10,200

Junction Box I&M program (Quarterly Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 1200

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.05

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation ($3k per unit per year) $150

Annual cost of I & M (quarterly inspections) $3,400

Junction Box I&M program (Semi-annually Inspections)

# of inspections requires for the total Junction Box population 600

# of operators required for Junction Box I & M program 0.025

Annual cost of 1 Operator $65,000

Annual cost of OVA operation $75

Annual cost of I & M (semi-annually inspections) $1,700

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142 ) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for each Junction Box $2,000

Capital cost for all Junction Boxes $600,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $85,200

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $695,400

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $688,600

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $686,900

Annualized Cost = (Capital Recovery Factor = .142) X (Capital Expenditure)

Capital cost for uncontrolled Junction Box $2,500

Capital cost for all uncontrolled Junction Box $750,000

Annualized Cost @ 7% $106,500

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Monthly Junction Box I&M $866,700

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Quarterly Junction Box I&M $859,900

Cap Costs + Annualized Cost + Semi-annual Junction Box I&M $858,200